1

CALTEX VS. PALOMAR

(18 SCRA 247)
FACTS:
The Postmaster General was of the opinion that a contest known as
Caltex Hooded Pump Contest was a gift enterprise under Sections 1982 and 1983 of the
Revised Administrative Code, which authorizes the Director of Posts to issue fraud orders and
deny the use of the mails to any person conducting any lottery, gift enterprise or scheme for the
distribution of money. Caltex, in this action for declaratory relief, however contends that its
contest, which does not involve consideration, is not a gift enterprise as the same is understood
under the aforesaid legal provisions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the proposed Caltex Hooded Pump Contest violates the
anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law.
HELD:
Gift Enterprise is used in association with the word lottery. For a
lottery to be accomplished it has essentially an element of consideration aside from the elements
of prize and chance. In the element of consideration a participant is either required to pay a fee
or buy a merchandise or avail a service whatsoever before joining the contest. In this case, the
mechanics of the contest was simply for the participants to estimate the actual member of liters
the Caltex gas pump will dispense and no need to buy anything from the merchandise. This
failed to prove that there was a lottery involved for the contest and in which case, no
transgression on the provision of the Postal Law happened.

LEGAZPI VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

(68 SCRA 253)
FACTS:
Petitioner, an employee of DAR sent a letter to respondent, Secretary of
DAR expressing his desire to be laid-off under the provisions of RA 3844 as amended by RA
6389 on the condition that he would be paid the gratuity benefits to which he might be entitled
under RA 1616. His letter was denied prompting him to write another letter. The second letter
was approved and accordingly, petitioner was paid the amount of P36,845.55 by GSIS.
However, petitioners claim for gratuity under Sec. 169 of RA 3844 as amended by RA 6389 was
denied. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the provisions in addition to all benefits to which they are
entitled under existing laws and regulations showed should be interpreted as a legal exception to
the general policy of disallowing double retirement benefit to retirees.
HELD:
We are not prepared to yield to petitioner`s submission for there is nothing
in RA 3844 that would as much suggest that an employee which is laid-off or prefers to be laid
off can receive two pension benefits. On the contrary, Sec. 169 of Ra 3844 seems to indicate
that the benefits allotted to in the inserted phrase refers to those other than retirement benefits
as the money equivalent to his accumulated sick and vacation leaves. When a legislative enacts a
provision, it is understood that it is aware of previous statutes relating to the same subject matter
and that in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, the new provision should be
deemed enacted pursuant to the legislative policy embodied in prior statutes which should all be
construed together.
Petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

NFL VS. EISMA

(127 SCRA 419)
FACTS:
Petitioner NFL filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment a
petition for direct certification as the sole exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
monthly paid employees of the Respondent Zamboanga Wood products, Inc. Petitioner herein
change the respondent in the same office for underpayment. On May, 3, 1982, petitioner union
sent a notice of strike against private respondent alleging illegal termination of the Pres. Of said
union, unfair labor practice, non-payment of living allowances and employment of aliens without
proper permits. On July, 1982, private respondent filed a complaint with respondent judge
against the officer of the union for damages for obstruction of property with prayer for
preliminary injunction and restraining order. Six days later, q motion for dismissal and for the
dissolution of the restraining order and opposition to the issuance of writ of preliminary
injunction was filed. It was contended that the acts complained of were incident of picketing by
defendants then on strike and that the exclusive jurisdiction to handle the case belong to the
Labor Arbiter pursuant to BP 227 not CFL, hence this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether the Labor Arbiter rather than a regular court has jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint for damages by an employer against his employees arising from picketing
that accompanied a strike.
HELD:
The court has spoken in 3 decisions, they all reflect the utmost fidelity to
the plain command of the law that it is the labor arbiter, not the court that possesses original and
exclusive jurisdiction to decide a claim for damages arising from picketing or a strike.

PEOPLE VS. MAPA

(20 SCRA 1164)
G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967.
FACTS:
Accused was convicted of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
He however contends that he should be acquitted because he is a duly appointed secret agent of a
provincial governor.
.
ISSUE:
WON the appointment to and holding of the position of a secret agent to
the provincial governor would constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for the crime of
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
HELD:
A secret agent even if legally appointed by a provincial is not necessarily
exempted from criminal liability as such. The law does not excuse a person holding a secret
agent position from requiring to get license for firearm under custody. This is not clearly and
explicitly contained or indicated on the list of exception enumerated in the statutory provision.
The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent. As such he is not
exempt. The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. Construction and
interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or
inadequate without them. The conviction of the accused must stand. It cannot be set aside.