Skip to main content

Caltex v. Palomar G.R. No. L-19650 (1966)

 

Caltex v. Palomar G.R. No. L-19650 (1966)

  Uncategorized 

Topic. Definition of Statutory Construction

Case. Petition for declaratory relief against Postmaster 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.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ART. 17. PRINCIPALS- Principal by Direct Participation- Revised Penal Code

  ART. 17. PRINCIPALS I. There are three kinds of principals depending on the nature of their participation in the commission of the crime. However, irrespective of what type of principal they belong, their penalty will be the same. They are the following: A. Principal by Direct Participation B. Principal by Indespensable Cooperation C. Principal by Inducement A. BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION (PDP) A. This refers to those who actually and directly take part in the execution of the act. In all crimes there must always be those who actually perform the act which brings about the crime. They may be only one person or more. Whenever there are two or more involved in a crime, it becomes necessary to find out those who actually executed the act so that all may be held equally liable. B. To hold two or more persons as principals by direct participation, it must be shown that there exists a conspiracy between and among them. This is not the conspiracy punished as a crime but the co...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digests- Statutory Construction

  Government of the Phil. Islands v. HSBC, G.R. No. 44257, 22 November 1938   Facts: The appellees are banks doing business in the Philippines. This has been brought about   by the appellant to determine the liability of the appellees under section 11 of Act No. 4007. All the appellees demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Deeming the statutory provision relied upon by the appellant was unconstitutional. The National City Bank of New York alleged further, in support of the demurrer filed by it, that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant, and that section 11 of Act No. 4007 did not impose any tax upon national banking associations, in which class it belonged. The court below sustained the demurrers filed by the appellees, on the sole ground that the complaint did not allege a cause of action, because the statutory provision involved was unconstitutional. It questions now the constitut...
Post a Comment
Read more

Art. 17- PRINCIPALS BY INDUCEMENT (PI)- Revised Penal Code

  B. PRINCIPALS BY INDUCEMENT (PI)   I. Concept: Those who induce (PDP) to commit a crime either by: (a) force (b). inducement II. The use of force involves the application of either: A. Active force or material force upon the person of the PDP, resulting to serious bodily injury, to such a degree that the PDP is left with no choice but to do as ordered or B. Instilling fear of the commission or infliction of an equal or greater injury or evil either to the PDP or the latter’s family or even to a third person. The PDP may set up the use of force as an exempting circumstance. III. Inducement connotes that there was an agreement or conspiracy between the PI and the PDP. The inducement assumes several forms such as the following A. By the giving of a price, promise or reward. This must be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and not as an expression of appreciation. The same must be the sole reason for the commission of the crime. T...
Post a Comment
Read more