Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. vs. ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966 CASTRO, J., En Banc Construction, verily, is 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, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law (Black, Interpretation of Laws, p. 1). FACTS: In 1960, Caltex (Philippines) conceived a promotional scheme to drum up patronage for its oil products i.e. "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest." It calls for participants therein to estimate the actual number of liters a hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense during a specified period. Participation is to be open indiscriminately to all "motor vehicle owners and/or licensed drivers". No fee or consideration is required to be paid, no purchase of Caltex products required to be made. Foreseeing the extensive use of the mails for the said contest, Caltex made a letter to the postal authorities to justify its position that the contest does not violate the anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law. Unimpressed, the then Acting Postmaster General, Enrico Palomar, opined that the scheme falls within the purview of the provisions of The Postal Law i.e. Chapter 52 of the Revised Administrative Code, sections 1954(a), 1982 and 1983, which prohibits the non-mailable matter of any information regarding "any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind". Caltex thereupon invoked judicial intervention by filing a petition for declaratory relief against the Postmaster General, praying that judgment be rendered declaring its Caltex Hooded Pump Contest not to be violative of the Postal Law, and ordering respondent to allow petitioner the use of the mails to bring the contest to the attention of the public. The trial court ruled that the contest does not violate the Postal Code and that the Postmaster General has no right to bar the public distribution of the contest rules by the mails. The Postmaster General appealed to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the scheme proposed by Caltex is within the coverage of the prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law inescapably requires an inquiry into the intended meaning of the words used therein? HELD: No. "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" proposed by Caltex is not a lottery that may be administratively and adversely dealt with under the Postal Law. The term in question is used in association with the word "lottery". "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. The three essential elements of a lottery are: First, consideration; second, prize; and third, chance (El Debate", Inc. vs. Topacio). In the present case, the elements of prize and chance are too obvious in the disputed Caltexs scheme. However, with regards to the third element i.e. consideration, SC found nowhere in the said rules of 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. The scheme does not only appear to be, but actually is, a gratuitous distribution of property by chance. Like a lottery, a gift enterprise comes also within the prohibitive statutes only if it exhibits the tripartite elements of prize, chance and consideration. The apparent conflict of opinions is explained by the fact that the specific statutory provisions relied upon are not identical, the terms "lottery" and "gift enterprise" are used interchangeably; every case must be resolved upon the particular phraseology of the applicable statutory provision. With the meaning of lottery settled, and consonant to the well-known principle of legal hermeneutics noscitur a sociis it is only logical that the term under a construction should be accorded no other meaning than that which is consistent with the nature of the word associated therewith. Hence, if lottery is prohibited only if it involves a consideration, so also must the term "gift enterprise" be so construed. Significantly, there is not in the law the slightest indicium of any intent to eliminate that element of consideration from the "gift enterprise" therein included. Gratuitous distribution of property by lot or chance does not constitute "lottery", if it is not resorted to as a device to evade the law and no consideration is derived, directly or indirectly, from the party receiving the chance, gambling spirit not being cultivated or stimulated thereby. Under the prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law, gift enterprises and similar
2. The first sentence of Section 3 of Act No. 3936 directs the Attorney General, now Solicitor General, to commence an action or actions in the name of the People of the Philippines in the Court of First Instance of the province where the bank is located. The phrase "or actions" in this section is very significant. It manifests awareness on the part of the legislators that a single action to cover all banks wherever located in the Philippines would not be legally feasible in view of the venue prescribed for such action under the same section, i.e., the province where the bank is located. Thus, the addition of the last sentence, which the lower court had correctly interpreted to mean "that for escheat of unclaimed bank balances all banks located in one and the same province where the Court of First Instance concerned is located may be made parties defendant "in one action" was clearly intended to save on litigation and publication expenses, but certainly not as authority for the lumping together of all banks wherever found in the Philippines in one single escheat proceedings. 3. Anent the third issue raised, suffice it to say that Section 2(b) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot govern escheat proceedings principally because said section refers to personal actions. Escheat proceedings are actions in rem which must be brought in the province or city where the rem in this case the dormant deposits, is located.
What has been said above, relative to the conditions antecedent to, and concomitant with, the adoption of section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution, reveals clearly that its framers intended to prevent the majority party from controlling the Electoral Tribunals, and that the structure thereof is founded upon the equilibrium between the majority and the minority parties therein, with the Justices of the Supreme Court, who are members of said Tribunals, holding the resulting balance of power. The procedure prescribed in said provision for the selection of members of the Electoral Tribunals is vital to the role they are called upon to play. it constitutes the essence of said Tribunals. Hence, compliance with said procedure is mandatory, and acts performed in violation thereof are null and void. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Senate may not elect, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, those Senators who have not been nominated by the political parties specified in the Constitution; that the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate may nominate not more than three (3) members thereof to said Electoral Tribunal; that the party having