Caltex vs. Palomar (G.R. L-19650, 09/29/1966)

The principle “noscitur a sociis’, the term under construction shall be understood by the words preceding and following it. 

Caltex vs. Palomar (G.R. L-19650, 09/29/1966)

 

FACTS:

 

Caltex conceived a promotional scheme which will increase its patronage for oil products called “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest.” The contest calls for participants to estimate the number of liters a hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense during a specified period. To participate, entry forms are only needed which can be made available upon request at each Caltex station. No fee is required to be paid nor purchase has to be made prior to participating. Foreseeing the extensive use of mails to publicize the promotional scheme, Caltex made representations with the postal authorities to secure advanced clearance for mailing. Caltex, through its counsel, posited that  the contest does not violate anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law. The Postmaster General Palomar declined the grant of the requested clearance. Caltex sought a reconsideration. Palomar maintained that if the contest was pursued, a fraud order will be issued against Caltex. Thus, this case at bar.

 

ISSUES:

 

1.       Whether or not the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief

2.       Whether or not the proposed contest violates the Postal Law

 

RULINGS:

 

The Court held that 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.

 

Likewise, using the rules of Statutory Construction in discovering the meaning and intention of the authors in a case clouded with doubt as to its application, it was held that the promotional scheme does not violate the Postal Law in that it does not entail lottery or gift enterprise. Using the principle “noscitur a sociis’, the term under construction shall be understood by the words preceding and following it. 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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more