GR. No.

L 19650 September 29, 1966

Caltex vs. Palomar

Facts:
In 1960, Caltex Philippines announced its Caltex Hooded Pump Contest: which calls for
participation to estimate the actual number of liters as hooded gas pump at each Caltex station
will dispense during a specific period. Employees of Caltex Inc., its dealers and its advertising
agency, and their immediate families expected participation, is to be open indiscriminately to all
motor vehicle owners and/or licensed driver. To publicize the contest, Caltex sought the
assistance of the Philippine Postal Office. However, then acting Postmaster Enrico Palomar,
denied the request. Invoking that the request of Caltex is a violation of the Postal Law (Chapter
52 of the Revised Penal Code) Section 1954 of the RAC. According to Palomar, the contest was
a lottery hence, communications pertaining thereto cannot be mailed by Caltex in a Philippine
post.

Caltex brought the issue before the regular court through petition for declaratory relief.
Caltex argues that their contest is not a lottery because under jurisprudence, lottery consistes of
the 3 elements: a.) consideration, b.) prize, c.) chance

The petitioner insisted that their contest isnt a lottery because the first element,
consideration is missing. Palomar, however, did not relent and insisted that he was merely
applying the law.

ISSUE:

1.) Whether or not Caltex petition for declaratory relief is proper

2.) Whether or not the Caltex contest is a lottery/gift enterprise

RULING:

Yes, the petition is proper because

No, it is not a lottery because

GR No. L 39419 April 12, 1982
Airsporna vs. CA

FACTS:

Petitioner, Mapalad Aisporna, Rodolfos wife, with the City Court of Cabanatuan for
violation of Section 189 of the Insurance Act on 21 November 1970, or acting as an agent in the
soliciting insurance without securing the certificate of authority from the office of the Insurance
Commissioner. Mapalad contends that being the wife of true agent, Rodolfo, she naturally
helped him in his work, as clerk, and that policy was merely a renewal and was issued because
Isidro had called by telephone to renew, and at that time, her husband, Rodolfo, was absent and
so she left a note on top of her husbands desk to renew. On 2 August 1971, the trial court
found Mapalad guilty and sentenced here to pay a fine of P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
On appeal and on 14 August 1974, the trial courts decision was affirmed by the
appellate court (CA-GR 13243-CR). Hence, the present recourse was filed on 22 October 1974.
On 20 December 1974, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Court of Appeals,
submitted that Aisporna may not be considered as having violated Section 189 of the Insurance
Act.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a person can be convicted of having violated the first paragraph of Sec.
189 of the Insurance Act without reference to the second paragraph of the same section.

RULING:

Yes. We rule otherwise. Under the Texas Penal Code 1911, Article 689, making it a misdemeanor
for any person for
direct or indirect compensation to solicit insurance without a certificate of authority to act as an insurance
agent,
an information, failing to allege that the solicitor was to receive compensation either directly or indirectly,
charges
no offense.
3.
FACTS:
On December 17, 1968 Vicente Acaban filed a complaint in the court a quo against Bautista Logging Co., Inc.,
B & B Forest Development Corporation and Marino Bautista for the collection of a sum of money. To satisfy the
judgment, the plaintiff sought the garnishment of the bank deposit of the defendant B & B Forest
Development Corporation with the China Banking Corporation. Accordingly, a notice of garnishment was
issued by
the Deputy Sheriff of the trial court and served on said bank through its cashier, Tan Kim Liong. In reply, the
bank'
cashier invited the attention of the Deputy Sheriff to the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 which, it was
alleged,
prohibit the disclosure of any information relative to bank deposits. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a motion to cite
Tan Kim Liong for contempt of court.
The petitioners argue that the disclosure of the information required by the court does not fall within any of the
four
(4) exceptions enumerated in Section 2, and that if the questioned orders are complied with Tan Kim Liong may
be
criminally liable under Section 5 and the bank exposed to a possible damage suit by B & B Forest Development
Corporation. Specifically referring to this case, the position of the petitioners is that the bank deposit of
judgment
debtor B & B Forest Development Corporation cannot be subject to garnishment to satisfy a final judgment
against
it in view of the aforequoted provisions of law.

ISSUE:
whether or not a banking
institution may validly refuse to comply with a court process garnishing the bank deposit of a judgment debtor,
by
invoking the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405. *

RULING:
NO, It is sufficiently clear from the foregoing discussion of the conference committee report of the two houses
of
Congress that the prohibition against examination of or inquiry into a bank deposit under Republic Act 1405
does
not preclude its being garnished to insure satisfaction of a judgment. Indeed there is no real inquiry in such a
case,
and if the existence of the deposit is disclosed the disclosure is purely incidental to the execution process. It is
hard
to conceive that it was ever within the intention of Congress to enable debtors to evade payment of their just
debts,
even if ordered by the Court, through the expedient of converting their assets into cash and depositing the
same in
a bank.

4.
Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside and annul the decision, dated November 22, 1982, of public
respondent
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC, for short), approving the application of the Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company (PLDT, for short) of its revised schedule for its Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP)
for
the entire service area, including the ex-RETELCO area; as well as the order of January 14, 1983 which denied
the
motion for reconsideration of petitioner Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. (PCFI, for short).

ISSUE:
whether or not respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion when it approved the Revised
Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP) of respondent PLDT in the absence of specific rules and regulations
implementing Presidential Decree No. 217. Petitioner claims that these implementing rules and regulations are
mandatory pre-requisite for the approval of said SIP rates.

RULING:
any rate, there is no justification for the rate increase of the revised schedule of PLDT's Subscriber Investment
Plan. It is to say the least, untimely, considering the present economic condition obtaining in the country. The
approved rate defeats the purpose of the decree which is to spread ownership among the wide base of
investors.
The State, in Presidential Decree No. 217 promulgated on June 16, 1973, adopted the basic policies of the
telephone industry, which, among others, are: (1) the attainment of efficient telephone service for as wide an
area
as possible at the lowest reasonable costs to the subscriber; (2) the capital requirements of telephone utilities
obtained from ownership funds shall be raised from a broad base of investors, involving as large a number of
individual investors as may be possible; and (3) in any subscriber self-financing plan, the amount of subscriber
self-financing will, in no case, exceed fifty per centum (50%) of the cost of the installed telephone line, as may
be
determined from time to time by the regulatory bodies of the State.

5.
FACTS:

6
7. People vs. Ma