Extrinsic Aids -

Judicial Decisions
Garcia, Ma. Zafira B.
Tan, Jolly L.
Judicial Decisions

● Judicial Decisions are not law per se, they constitute evidence
of what the law means
● It is advisable to consider SC decisions in looking at the
reasonable interpretation of a law
● Judicial Decisions as part of an extrinsic aid can be related to
the principle of stare decisis
Caltex vs. Palomar, No. L-19650 September 29,
1966, 18 SCRA 247
 Facts
In the year 1960, Caltex Philippines conceived and laid the groundwork for a
promotional scheme calculated to drum up patronage for its oil products. The contest
was entitled “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest”, which calls for participants to estimate the
actual number of liters as hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense during
a specific period.

Foreseeing the extensive use of the mails not only as amongst the media for publicizing
the contest but also for the transmission of communications, representations were made
by Caltex with the postal authorities for the contest to be cleared in advance for mailing.
This was formalized in a letter sent by Caltex to the Postmaster General, dated October
31, 1960, in which Caltex, thru its counsel, enclosed a copy of the contest rules and
endeavored to justify its position that the contest does not violate the “The Anti-Lottery
Provisions of the Postal Law”
 Petitioner’s Argument:
Caltex sought reconsideration, stressing that there being no
consideration involved in part of the contestant, the contest was
not commendable as lottery
 Respondent’s Arguments:
The contest scheme falls within the purview of the Anti-Lottery
Provision. Respondent also maintained his view that the contest
involves consideration, or even it does not involve any
consideration it still falls as “Gift Enterprise”, which was equally
banned by the Postal Law
Issues:
1. Whether or not the petition states a sufficient cause
of action for declaratory relief

2. Whether or not the scheme proposed by Caltex the

appellee is within the coverage of the prohibitive
provisions of The Anti-Lottery Provisions of the Postal
Law?
Provision Subject to Statutory Construction:

The Anti-Lottery Provisions of the Postal Law

Ruling for Issue # 1:
Yes, the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief since it
qualifies for the 4 requisites on invoking declaratory relief available to any person
whose rights are affected by a statute to determine any question of construction or
validity. To the petitioner, the construction hampers or disturbs its freedom to
enhance its business while to the respondent, suppression of the petitioner’s
proposed contest believed to transgress the law he has sworn to uphold and enforce
is an unavoidable duty.

The appellant, underrated the force and binding effect of the ruling hand down in this
case if he believes that it will not have the final and pacifying function that a
declaratory judgment is calculated to subserve. At the very least, the appellant will be
bound. But more than this, he obviously overlooks that in this jurisdiction, "Judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form a part of the legal system" (Article
8, Civil Code of the Philippines).
Ruling for Issue # 2:
According to the Supreme Court, the contest scheme is not a lottery but it
appears to be more of a gratuitous distribution since nowhere in the rules is
any requirements that any fee be paid, any merchandise be bought, any
services be rendered, or any value whatsoever be given for the privilege to
participate.

Thus, using the definitions of lottery and gift enterprise which both has the
requisites of prize, chance and consideration, the promo contest does not
clearly violate the Postal Law because of lack of consideration.