1) G.R. No.

L-19650
Caltex Philippines, Inc., petitioner-appellee
Vs.
Enrico Palomar, in his capacity as The Postmaster General, respondent-appellant
FACTS:
In the year 1960, Caltex Philippines conceived and laid the ground work 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.
Such contest is open to all motor vehicle owners and/or licensed drivers. There is no required fee or consideration, and there is no need for
the contestants to purchase the products of Caltex. The forms are available upon request at each Caltex Station and there is a sealed can where
accomplished entry stubs may be deposited.
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, the Palomar, the acting Postmaster General denied Caltexs request stating that the contest scheme falls within the purview of
the Anti-lottery Provision and ultimately, declined Clatexs request for clearance.
Caltex sought reconsideration, stressing that there being no consideration involved in part of the contestant, the contest was not
commendable as a lottery. However, the Postmaster General 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.
ISSUE #1: Whether the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief?
HELD:
Recapitulating, we hold 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.
By express mandate of Section 1 of Rule 66 of the old Rules of Court which deals with the applicability to invoke declaratory relief which
states: Declaratory relief is available to 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 rights thereunder.
In amplification, conformably established jurisprudence on the matter, laid down certain conditions:
1.

There must be a justiciable controversy.

2.

The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse.

3.

The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy.

4.

The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.

With the appellees bent to hold the contest and the appellants threat to issue a fraud order if carried out, the contenders are confronted by an
ominous shadow of imminent and inevitable litigation unless their differences are settled and stabilized by a declaration. And, contrary to the
insinuation of the appellant, the time is long past when it can rightly be said that merely the appellees desires are thwarted by its own doubts, or by
the fears of others which admittedly does not confer a cause of action. Doubt, if any there was, has ripened into a justiciable controversy when,
as in the case at bar, it was translated into a positive claim of right which is actually contested.
Construction

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.
It is not amiss to point out at this juncture that the conclusion we have herein just reached is not without precedent. In Liberty Calendar Co. vs.
Cohen, 19 N.J., 399, 117 A. 2d., 487, where a corporation engaged in promotional advertising was advised by the county prosecutor that its
proposed sales promotion plan had the characteristics of a lottery, and that if such sales promotion were conducted, the corporation would be subject
to criminal prosecution, it was held that the corporation was entitled to maintain a declaratory relief action against the county prosecutor to determine
the legality of its sales promotion plan.
The lesson that we derive from this state of the pertinent jurisprudence is that every case must be resolved upon the particular phraseology of
the applicable statutory provision. 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.
In the end, the Supreme Court ruled out that under the prohibitive provision of the Postal Law, gift enterprise and similar schemes therein
contemplated are condemnable only if, like lotteries, they involve the element of consideration. Finding non in the contest, it was ruled out that the
appellee may not be denied the use of the mails for the purpose thereof.
ISSUE #2: Whether construction should be employed in the case.
HELD:
Construction 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. In the present case, the prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law inescapably require an inquiry into the intended meaning of the words used
therein. This is as much a question of construction or interpretation as any other. The Court is tasked to look beyond the fair exterior, to the
substance, in order to unmask the real element and pernicious tendencies that the law is seeking to prevent.
2) G.R. No. 189600 June 29, 2010
Milagros Amores vs. HRET and Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari challenging the assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva (private respondent) as representative of the
party-list organization Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives.
The petitioner alleges that, among other things, private respondent assumed office without a formal proclamation issued by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC); he was disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since, at the time of the filing of his certificate of nomination

and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of RA No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List
System Act.; and his change of affiliation from CIBACs youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector was not effected at least
six months prior to the May 2007 elections so as to be qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15 of RA No. 7941.
HRET (public respondent) dismissed petitioners petition, finding that CIBAC was among the party-list organizations which the COMELEC had
partially proclaimed as entitled to at least one seat in the House of Representatives through National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 0760 dated July 9, 2007. It also found the petition which was filed on October 17, 2007 to be out of time, the reglementary period being 10 days from
private respondents proclamation.
Respecting the age qualification for youth sectoral nominees under Section 9 of RA No. 7941, public respondent held that it applied only to those
nominated as such during the first three congressional terms after the ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter
registered exclusively as representing the youth sector, which CIBAC, a multi-sectoral organization, is not.
In the matter of private respondents shift of affiliation from CIBACs youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector, public
respondent held that Section 15 of RA No. 7941 did not apply as there was no resultant change in party-list affiliation.
Petitioner contends that, among other things, public respondent created distinctions in the application of Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 that are
not found in the subject provisions, fostering interpretations at war with equal protection of the laws; and NBC Resolution No. 07-60, which was a
partial proclamation of winning party-list organizations, was not enough basis for private respondent to assume office on July 10, 2007, especially
considering that he admitted receiving his own Certificate of Proclamation only on December 13, 2007.
Private respondent avers in the main that petitioner has not substantiated her claims of grave abuse of discretion against public respondent; and that
he became a member of the overseas Filipinos and their families sector years before the 2007 elections.
ISSUE #1: Whether or not Section 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to private respondent.
HELD:
The Court finds no textual support for public respondents interpretation that Section 9 applied only to those nominated during the first three
congressional terms after the ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter registered exclusively as representing
the youth sector.
Respecting Section 15 of RA No. 7941, the Court fails to find even an iota of textual support for public respondents ratiocination that the provision
did not apply to private respondents shift of affiliation from CIBACs youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector as there
was no resultant change in party-list affiliation.
What is clear is that the wording of Section 15 covers changes in both political party and sectoral affiliation. And the latter may occur within the same
party since multi-sectoral party-list organizations are qualified to participate in the Philippine party-list system. Hence, a nominee who changes his
sectoral affiliation within the same party will only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected at least
six months before the elections. Again, since the statute is clear and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without
attempted interpretation. This is the plain meaning rule or verba legis, as expressed in the maxim index animi sermo or speech is the index of
intention.
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or
interpretation. There is only room for application.
It is, therefore, beyond cavil that Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to private respondent.
The Court finds that private respondent was not qualified to be a nominee of either the youth sector or the overseas Filipino workers and their
families sector in the May, 2007 elections.
The records disclose that private respondent was already more than 30 years of age in May, 2007, it being stipulated that he was born in August,
1975. Moreover, he did not change his sectoral affiliation at least six months before May, 2007, public respondent itself having found that he shifted
to CIBACs overseas Filipino workers and their families sector only on March 17, 2007.
3) G.R. No. 94147

4)