Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner-appellee, vs.

ENRICO
PALOMAR, in his capacity as THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
respondent-appellant.
What Happened?
In the year 1960, the Caltex Philippines Inc. announced
Caltex Hooded Pump Contest
What is Caltex Hooded Pump Contest?
It estimates the actual number of liters a hooded gas pump at
each Caltex station during a specified period.
Open indiscriminately to all "motor vehicle owners and/or
licensed drivers".
For the privilege to participate, no fee or consideration is
required to be paid, no purchase of Caltex products required
to be made.
Entry forms are to be made available upon request at each
Caltex station where a sealed can will be provided for the
deposit of accomplished entry stubs.
A three-staged winner selection system
o "Dealer Contest", the contestant whose estimate is
closest to the actual number of liters dispensed by the
hooded pump thereat is to be awarded the first prize;
the next closest, the second; and the next, the third.
o The first-prize winner in each station will then be
qualified to join in the "Regional Contest" in seven
different regions.
o The regional first-prize winners will be entitled to make
a three-day all-expenses-paid round trip to Manila,
accompanied by their respective Caltex dealers, in order
to take part in the "National Contest".
So what happened?
representations were made by Caltex with the postal
authorities for the contest to be cleared in advance for mailing
in view of sections 1954(a), 1982 and 1983 of the Revised
Administrative Code,lesvir
In a letter to the Postmaster General, dated October 31,
1960, in which the Caltex, then closed a copy of the contest
rules and justified its position that the contest does not violate
the anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law.
Acting Postmaster General declined to grant the requested
clearance.
Caltex sought a reconsideration of the foregoing stand,
stressing that the contest was not condemnable as a lottery.

Postmaster General maintained that the contest is


nevertheless a "gift enterprise" which is equally banned by the
Postal Law,
In his letter of December 10, 1960 not only denied the use of
the mails for purposes of the proposed contest but as well
threatened that if the contest was conducted, "a fraud order
will have to be issued against it (Caltex) and all its
representatives".chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
law library

What happened in court?


Caltex thereupon invoked judicial intervention by filing the
present petition for declaratory relief against Postmaster
General Enrico Palomar
The Court holds that the proposed 'Caltex Hooded Pump
Contest' announced to be conducted by the petitioner does
not violate the Postal Law and the respondent has no right to
bar the public distribution of said rules by the mails.
Respondents appealed
Both respondents pray before SC
1. Whether or not the petition states a sufficient
cause of action for declaratory relief?
2. Whether or not the proposed "Caltex Hooded
Pump Contest" violates the Postal Law?
(ito yung issue)
HELD:
1. PETITION IS A DECLARATORY RELIEF
What is Declaratory Relief?
Declaratory relief is available to any person "whose
rights are affected by a statute . . . to determine any
question of construction or validity arising under the . . .
statute and for a declaration of his rights thereunder"
Ratio:

The infirmity of this pose lies in the fact that it proceeds


from the assumption that, if the circumstances here
presented, the construction of the legal provisions can
be divorced from the matter of their application to the
appellee's contest.
Whether it cannot obtain a final and definitive
pronouncement as to whether the anti-lottery provisions
of the Postal Law apply to its proposed contest
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
In simple words, there is declaratory relief because the
court must determine the meaning of lottery, gift
enterprise etc. which would constitute fraud and
banning of usage of mail in sending advertisement of
such contest.(sarili kong intindi to)

2. CALTEXS CONTEST IS NOT A LOTTERY OR GIFT


ENTERPRISE AND SHOULD NOT BE BANNED FROM
MAILS
What is Lottery?
The term "lottery" extends to all schemes for the
distribution of prizes by chance, such as policy playing,
gift exhibitions, prize concerts, raffles at fairs, etc., and
various forms of gambling.
Is Gift Enterprise different from Lottery? NO
Ratio:
The law does not condemn the gratuitous distribution of
property by chance, if no consideration is derived
directly or indirectly from the party receiving the chance
Simply estimate the actual number of liter the Caltex
gas pump with the hood at your favorite Caltex dealer
will dispense from - to -, and win valuable prizes . . . .".
Nowhere in the said rules is any requirement that any
fee be paid, any merchandise be bought, any service be
rendered, or any value whatsoever be given for the
privilege to participate.
There is no point to the appellant's insistence that nonCaltex customers who may buy Caltex products simply
to win a prize would actually be indirectly paying a
consideration for the privilege to join the contest.
Construed that GIFT ENTERPRISE = LOTTERY
The Postal Law, GIFT ENTERPRISE is used in association
with the word "lottery".
Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" as described in the rules
submitted by the appellee does not transgress the
provisions of the Postal Law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
es virtual law library

DAVAO ORIENTAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Petitioner,


vs.THE PROVINCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL, Respondent.
What happened?
Petitioner Davao Oriental Electric Cooperative, Inc. was
organized under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 269
granted with a number of tax and duty exemption privileges
to electric cooperatives
In 1984, PD No. 1955, withdrew all exemptions from or any
preferential treatment in the payment of duties, taxes, fees,
imposts, and other charges granted to private business
enterprises and/or persons engaged in any economic activity
Due to the failure of petitioner to declare the value of its
properties, the Office of the Provincial Assessor assessed its
properties an sent the Notice of Assessment to petitioner
which duly received it.
In 1985, the Fiscal Incentive Review Board (FIRB) issued FIRB
Resolution No. 13-85, Davao City issued Regional Office
Memorandum Circular No. 42-85, all of which reiterated the
withdrawal of tax exemptions previously granted to business
entities including electric cooperatives.
Effective July 1, 1987, FIRB No. 24-87 restored the tax and
duty exemption privileges of electric cooperatives under PD
No. 269.
Then,
In May 1990, respondent filed a complaint for collection of
delinquent real property taxes against petitioner for the years
1984 until 1989, amounting to P1,825,928.12.
Petitioner contends that it was exempt from the payment of
real estate taxes from 1984 to 1989 because the restoration
of tax exemptions under FIRB Resolution No. 24-87 retroacts
to the date of withdrawal of said exemptions.
Issue: Whether or not the exemption under FIRB Resolution No. 2487 retroacts to the date of withdrawal of said exemptions?
Held: NO
The FIRB Resolution No. 24-87 is very specific and clear that the tax
and duty exemption privileges of electric cooperatives are restored
effective 1 July 1987. Besides, it is settled that laws have no

retroactive effect. It is settled that a "sound statutory construction


is that a statute operates prospectively, unless the legislative intent
to the contrary is made manifest either by the express terms of the
statute or by necessary implication." . . .