Caltex v.

Palomar

FACTS:
In the year 1960, Caltex Philippines, Inc. laid groundwork for a promotional of their oil products.
Caltex Hooded Pump Contest was the name of their event. The mechanics were as follows:
1. Participants must estimate the actual number of liters a hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense during a
specified period;
2. Contest is open to all car owners or licensed drivers;
3. Participants need not buy any Caltex products to be eligible. No fee is required.
4. Participants just need to fill out a form and drop their entries at the nearest Caltex station.
In order to publicize their contest, Caltex enclosed a copy of their contest procedures to justify their position that the contest
does not violate the anti-lottery provision of the Postal Law.
o SECTION 1954. Absolutely non-mailable matter. No matter belonging to any of the following classes, whether sealed
as first-class matter or not, shall be imported into the Philippines through the mails, or to be deposited in or carried by
the mails of the Philippines, or be delivered to its addressee by any officer or employee of the Bureau of Posts:
Written or printed matter in any form advertising, describing, or in any manner pertaining to, or conveying or
purporting to convey any information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme depending in whole or
in part upon lot or chance, or any scheme, device, or enterprise for obtaining any money or property of any kind by
means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.
However, Postmaster Enrico Palomar denied the request of Caltex as Palomar deemed that the contest is a violation of the
Postal Law.
Enrico maintains that the contest involves consideration or a gift enterprise, which are both banned by the Postal Law.
Caltex filed a petition for declatory relief against Postmaster Enrico to declare the said contest not to be violative of Postal Law
and allow mails to be used to publicize their contest to the public.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Caltexs petition for declaratory relief is proper?

HELD/ RATIO:

Yes. The petition is proper. Construction of a law is in order if what is in issue is an inquiry into the intended meaning of the words
used in a certain law. As defined in Blacks Law Dictionary: 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.

SC DECISION: The Court ruled that the petition herein states a sufficient case of action for declaratory relief.