CASE BRIEF: Caltex v. Palomar (G.R. No.

L-19650, September 29, 1966)

Facts:
In the year 1960, Caltex Philippines launched 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. The contest is open to all motor vehicle owners and or licensed
drivers. Neither a fee nor a purchase is required to be made.

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 Post master 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.

Unfortunately, Palomar, the acting Postmaster General denied Caltexs request in view of
sections 1954 (a), 1982 and 1983 of the Revised Administrative Code (Anti-Lottery Provisions of the
Postal Law), which prohibits the use of mail in conveying any information concerning non-mailable
schemes, such as lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme.

Caltex sought for reconsideration and stressed that there being no consideration involved in part
of the contestant, the contest was not commendable as a lottery. However, the Palomar 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. Palomar even threatened Caltex that if
the contest was conducted, fraud will be issued against Caltex and all its representatives. A petition for
declaratory relief was then filed by Caltex.






ISSUES:

Whether or not the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief?
Whether or not the scheme proposed by Caltex violates the Postal Law?


RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled out that the petition herein states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory
relief, and that the Caltex Hooded Pump Contest as described in the rules submitted by the appellee
does not transgress the provisions of the Postal Law. It was ruled out that the appellee may not be
denied the use of the mails for the purpose thereof.














CASE BRIEF: Paras v. Comelec (G.R. No. 123169, November 4 1996)

Facts:

Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won during the last
regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the
registered voters of the barangay. Commission on Election resolved to approve the petition, scheduled
the petition signing on October 14, 1995, and set the recall election on November 13, 1955. At least
29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition (Well above the 25% requirement provided by the
Law). However, the COMELEC, due to the petitioners opposition, recall election was deferred to
December 16, 1995. In order to prevent the holding of the recall election, petitioner filed injunction (SP
Civil Action No. 2254-AF) before the RTC of Cabanatuan City, with the trial court issuing a restraining
order.

After conducting a summary hearing, the trial court lifted the restraining order, dismissed the petition
and required petitioner and his counsel to explain why they should not be cited for contempt for
misrepresenting that the barangay recall election was without COMELEC approval.

In a resolution dated 5 January 1996, the Comelec, for the third time, re-scheduled the recallelection on
13 January 1996; hence, the instant petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. The
petitioner contends that no recall can take place within one year preceding aregular local election, the
Sangguniang Kabataan elections slated on the first Monday of May1996. He cited Associated Labor
Union v. Letrondo-Montejo to support the argument, the Courtin which case considered the SK election
as a regular local election.

Issue:
Whether or not the Sangguniang Kabataan election is to be construed as a regular local election in a
recall proceeding?


Ruling:

It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to
the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and
kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. Further, the spirit, rather than the letter
of a law determines its construction; hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit and intent. The
too literal interpretation of the law leads to absurdity which the Court cannot countenance. A too-literal
reading of the law constricts rather than fulfills its purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. That
intention is usually found not in the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth. In the present
case, Paragraph (b) of Section 74 construed together with paragraph (a) merely designates the period
when such elective local official may be subject of a recall election. The Sangguniang Kabataan elections
cannot be considered a regular election, as this would render inutile the recall provision of the Local
Government Code. It would be more in keeping with the intent of the recall provision of the Code to
construe regular local election as one referring to an election where the office held by the local elective
official sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled by the electorate.

The Supreme Court, however, has to dismiss the petition for having become moot and academic, as the
next regular elections involving the barangay office concerned were seven months away. Thus, the
Temporary Restraining Order issued on 12 January 1996, enjoining the recall election, was made
permanent.