Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Noscitur a sociis

Definition of stat con


Caltex v. Palomar
GR No. L-19650
September 29, 1966
Castro, J.

FACTS

In 1960, Caltex, Inc. conceived a promotional scheme to increase patronage for its oil products which it
called Caltex Hooded Pump Contest. The contest calls for the participants to estimate the actual number of liters
a hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense during a specified period. Any one may participate, except
for employees of Caltex and its advertising agency, by requesting entry forms available at each Caltex station. Said
contest does not require any fee, consideration, or purchase of Caltex products for the chance to participate.
Caltex wished to use the postal service as a means of advertising and communications for the contest and
requested an advance clearance therefor. The Acting Post Master General Palomar denied this on ground that it is
violative of the Postal Law. Caltex sought reconsideration but Palomar maintained that the contest is a lottery, or a
gift enterprise if otherwise, and threatened to issue a fraud order against Caltex if it pushes through with the
contest.
Caltex filed a petition for declaratory relief and the trial court held that the contest does not violate the
Postal Law. Palomar appealed.

ISSUE
Whether there is sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief on the matter
Whether construction should be employed in the case

HELD

Yes. The Rules of Court state that 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. There is a right asserted by Caltex and a denial of it by the appellant concerning a question or
issue that requires construction: whether or not the scheme proposed by the appellee is within the coverage of the
prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law.
In this regard, the SC held that the Caltex Hooded Pump Contest is not within the coverage of the said law
which prohibits mailing of any information concerning "any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of
money, or of any real or personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind." The contest does not constitute a
lottery because it lacks one essential element: consideration, there being no valuable consideration required for the
chance.
Moreover, the appellants contention that the scheme may be considered a gift enterprise cannot be applied
to the present case since there is no sale of anything to which the chance is offered. A gift enterprise is commonly
applied to a sporting artifice under which goods are sold for their market value but, by way of inducement, each
purchaser is given a chance to win a prize. Like a lottery, a gift enterprise comes within the prohibitive statutes only
if it exhibits the tripartite elements of prize, chance and consideration. However, in the opinion relied upon by the
appellant, the elements of gift enterprise are only chance and prize. In this light, the SC said that every case must
be resolved upon the particular phraseology of the applicable statutory provision and applied the principle noscitur
a sociis. The term under construction should be accorded no other meaning than that which is consistent with the
nature of the word associated therewith. Since under the Postal Law, lottery, to which gift enterprise is associated,
is prohibited if it also involves a consideration, so also must the term "gift enterprise" be so construed. Furthermore,
the provision under consideration aims to suppress gambling where it is inherent that something of value be wagered
for a chance to win a larger amount. There being no consideration derived, gambling spirit is not cultivated or
stimulated thereby.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen