CALTEX

CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. vs.
ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as THE POSTMASTER

GENERAL
G.R. No. L-19650, SEPTEMBER 29, 1966
FACTS:
In the year 1960 the Caltex (Philippines) Inc. conceived and laid the groundwork for a promotional scheme
dubbed as "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest". Representations were made by Caltex with the postal
authorities for the contest to be cleared in advance for mailing, foreseeing the extensive use of the mails. In
a letter to the Postmaster General, dated October 31, 1960, the Caltex, thru counsel, enclosed a copy of the
contest rules and endeavored to justify its position that the contest does not violate the anti-lottery
provisions of the Postal Law to formalize the matter. The then Acting Postmaster General declined to grant
the requested clearance explaining that the scheme falls within the purview of the provisions aforesaid. In
its counsel's letter of December 7, 1960, Caltex sought reconsideration, stressing that there being no
consideration in the part of any contestant, the contest was not condemnable as a lottery. The Postmaster
General maintained his view relying on an opinion rendered by the Secretary of Justice on an unrelated
case seven years before (Opinion 217, Series of 1953).
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief?
2. Whether or not the proposed "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" violates the Postal Law?
HELD:
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.
The contenders are confronted by an ominous shadow of imminent and inevitable
litigation with the appellee‘s bent to hold the contest and the appellant‘s threat to issue a fraud order if carried out
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 appellee‘s ―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.
The trial court rendered judgment as follows: In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court holds that
the proposed 'Caltex Hooded Pump Contest' announced to be conducted by the petitioner under the rules
marked as Annex B of the petitioner does not violate the Postal
Law and the respondent has no right to bar the public distribution of said rules by the mails.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARIO MAPA y MAPULONG

G.R. No. L-22301, AUGUST 30, 1967
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINE:

It is the first duty of the court to apply the law. Statutory Construction comes after
it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them.
FACTS:
Mapa was charged for illegal possession of firearms in violation of section 878 of RAC in connection 2692
of the same code as amended by CA 56 and RA 4. Caliber 22 without license. Mapa admits the accusation
but on grounds of his duty as a secret agent to Batangas Governor Leviste. The lower court rendered a
decision convicting Mapa of the crime and imprisonment of 1 year 1 day to 2 years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a secret agent should, like Mapa, be licensed firearm exempt?
HELD:
The law is clear that it is unlawful for any person to possess firearms in section 878 and of the RAC, except
when such are in possession of public officials in the performance of their duties. SC affirmed the
judgment.
RODERICK DAOANG, and ROMMEL DAOANG, assisted by their father, ROMEO DAOANG
vs. THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE, SAN NICOLAS, ILOCOS NORTE, ANTERO AGONOY and
AMANDA RAMOS-AGONOY G.R. No. L-34568, MARCH 28, 1988
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINE:

A statute clear and unambiguous on its face need not be interpreted; stated otherwise; the rule is that only
statutes with an ambiguous or doubtful meaning may be the subject of statutory construction.
FACTS:
On 23 March 1971, the respondent spouses Antero and Amanda Agonoy filed a petition with the Municipal
Court of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, seeking the adoption of the minors Quirino Bonilla and Wilson Marcos.
The case, entitled: "In re Adoption of the Minors Quirino Bonilla and Wilson Marcos, Antero Agonoy and
Amanda Ramos- Agonoy, petitioners", was docketed therein as Spec. Proc. No. 37. On 22 April 1971, the
minors Roderick and Rommel Daoang, assisted by their father and guardian ad litem, filed an opposition to
the aforementioned petition for adoption, claiming that the spouses Antero and Amanda Agonoy had a
legitimate daughter named Estrella Agonoy, oppositors' mother, who died on 1 March 1971, and therefore,
said spouses were disqualified to adopt under Art. 335 of the Civil Code. The Municipal Court of San
Nicolas, Ilocos Norte rendred its decision, granting the petition for adoption.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent, spouses Antero Agonoy and Amanda Ramos- Agonoy are disqualified to
adopt under paragraph (1), Art. 335 of the Civil Code, to wit: Art. 335. The following cannot adopt:
(1) Those who have legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural
children or children by legal fiction.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that the words used in paragraph (1) of Art. 335 of theCivil Code, in enumerating
the persons who cannot adopt, are clear and unambiguous.The children mentioned therein have a clearly
defined meaning in law and, as pointedout by the respondent judge, do not include grandchildren.

CALTEX

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALTEX

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALTEX

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. vs.

ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as THE POSTMASTER

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARIO MAPA y MAPULONG

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINE:

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINE:

You might also like