Caltex v Palomar

Facts. Caltex initiated a promotional scheme entitled “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” where contenders
would guess the amount of liters contained in a covered pump. To join, participants need not purchase
any Caltex products but only to request entry forms from their local Caltex stations. Choosing winners
would be of three-levels: Dealer, Regional, and National Contest. At the first level, whoever has the
closest determinations of the hooded pump contents wins along with other two runner-ups with
corresponding prizes. First prize for Dealer Contest elevates to Regional and the same mechanics of first,
second, third prizes come into play. First prize from the Regional goes to National Contest.

Foreseeing the imminent bulk use of mail for the scheme, Caltex asked postal authorities to be cleared of
some pertinent provisions in the Postal Law. The Postal Law enumerates non-mailable matters,
authorizes issuance of fraud order, and identifies effect of violating said law. Some items under non-
mailable matters are advertising on lottery, gift enterprise, or other similar schemes. In response to
Caltex’s request, Postmaster Palomar denied Caltex’s plea saying that its scheme falls under advertising
for lottery, which constitute non-mailable matter. Caltex asked for reconsideration; Postmaster reiterated
his stance and added that if scheme pushes through, fraud order would be served. Caltex sought judicial
intervention. And trial court ruled in their favor. Postmaster now appealed.

Issue. Does “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” violate Postal Law? -No

Ratio. What is prohibited by the Postal Law is lottery, inter alia. Lottery necessarily includes
consideration, prize, and chance. Caltex’s contest does include the elements of prize and chance but not
consideration as no purchase is required of participants. Is it a gift enterprise? Still no because no
purchase. Lottery is prohibited if there is consideration; thereby gift enterprise is also prohibited if there is
consideration, following noscitur a sociis. But as demonstrated, neither is Caltex’s game a lottery nor a gift
enterprise. Hence it should be allowed to proceed.

Doctrine: Construction is defined as the “art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and
intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is
rendered doubtful, among others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in
the law”. It applies in this case in how the ponencia examined the meaning of “lottery” to come to a
conclusion. Specifically, it applied when the court looked into what lottery meant: consideration, prize, and
chance. This allowed for a decisive interpretation of the word in question.

ART 8 of the NCC: The appellant, we apprehend, underrates the force and binding effect of the ruling we
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). In effect, judicial decision assume the
same authority as the statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent
that they are applicable, the criteria which must control the actuations not only of those called upon to
abide thereby but also of those in duty bound to enforce obedience thereto. Accordingly, we entertain no
misgivings that our resolution of this case will terminate the controversy at hand.
 RB MICHAEL PRESS v GALIT

HELD:

In resolving the issue on tardiness, the labor arbiter ruled that petitioners cannot use respondent's
habitual tardiness and unauthorized absences to justify his dismissal since they had already deducted the
corresponding amounts from his salary. Furthermore, the labor arbiter explained that since respondent
was not subjected to any admonition or penalty for tardiness, petitioners then had condoned the offense
or that the infraction is not serious enough to merit any penalty. The CA then supported the labor arbiter's
ruling by ratiocinating that petitioners cannot draw on respondent's habitual tardiness in order to dismiss
him since there is no evidence which shows that he had been warned or reprimanded for his excessive
and habitual tardiness.

We find the ruling incorrect.

The mere fact that the numerous infractions of respondent have not been immediately subjected to
sanctions cannot be interpreted as condonation of the offenses or waiver of the company to enforce
company rules. A waiver is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known legal
right or privilege. It has been ruled that "a waiver to be valid and effective must be couched in clear and
unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or benefit which
legally pertains to him." Hence, the management prerogative to discipline employees and impose
punishment is a legal right which cannot, as a general rule, be impliedly waived.
 NORMA DEL SOCORRO V. WILSEM CASE DIGEST - CIVIL
LAW
FACTS:

Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland. They
were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their
marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of
Holland. Thereafter, Norma and her son came home to the Philippines. According to
Norma, Ernst made a promise to provide monthly support to their son. However, since
the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave support to
Roderigo. Respondent remarried again a Filipina and resides again the Philippines
particulary in Cebu where the petitioner also resides. Norma filed a complaint against
Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262 (Anti Violence Against Women and Childrden) for
the latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor child with petitioner. The trial court
dismissed the complaint since the facts charged in the information do not constitute an
offense with respect to the accused, he being an alien

ISSUES:

1. Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child under the
Philippine law?
2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262
for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.

RULING:

1. YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands,

we agree with the RTC that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law,
as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of
his failure to do so. This does not, however, mean that Ernst is not obliged to support
Norma’s son altogether. In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law
applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In the present
case, Ernst hastily concludes that being a national of the Netherlands, he is governed
by such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded
the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged to support
his son, he never proved the same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove that
the national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to
support their child. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must
be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application
would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice
is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is
obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Applying the
foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to
support his child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith, such obligation is still duly
enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child to be
denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.

2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262) because the foreigner is
living here in the Philippines and committed the offense here.