CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC.

, petitioner-appellee, vs ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, respondent-appellant (18 SCRA 247)
FACTS:
In 1960, Caltex brought about a promotional scheme called "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" which
calls for participants to estimate the actual number of liters a hooded gas pump each Caltex
station will dispense during a specified period. The contest is open to all motor vehicle owners
and/or licensed drivers. There is neither a fee or consideration required nor a purchase required
to be made. Entry forms are available upon request at each Caltex station and there is also a
sealed can where accomplished such forms may be deposited.
Caltex anticipated the extensive use of mails for publicizing the contest, thus, Caltex sent
representatives to the postal authorities for the contest to be cleared in advance for mailing
which the Postmaster General declined to grant in view of sections 1954 (a), 1982, and 1983 of
the Revised Administrative Code (Anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law), which prohibits the
use of mail in conveying any information concerning non-mailable schemes, such as lottery, gift
enterprise, or similar scheme.
Caltex sought for a reconsideration and stressed that there was no consideration involved in the
part of the contestant(s) but the Postmaster General maintained their view and even threatened
Caltex that if the contest was conducted, a fraud order will have to be issued against it (Caltex)
and all its representatives" This leads to Caltexs filing of this petition for declaratory relief.
The court ruled that the petitioner does not violate the Postal Law and the respondent has no
right to bar the public distribution or said rules by the mails." The respondent appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief
RULING:
Yes, the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief. As stated in section 1 of
Rule 66 of the old Rules of Court, declaratory relief is available to any 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 his rights thereunder". In the case at bar, Caltex found
expedient to request the Postmaster General for an advance clearance of the mails to be used in
the dissemination of information. However, the Postmaster General saw a violation thereof in the
proposed scheme and accordingly declined the request. A point of difference as to the correct
construction to be given to the applicable statute was thus reached. 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.
Whether or not the scheme proposed by the appellee 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. This is as much a question of construction or interpretation as any other.
Therefore, the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief.MAPALAD
AISPORNA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents (113 SCRA 459)
FACTS: