Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

STATUTORY CASES

Case Title: G.R. No. L-19650 (September 29, 1966)


Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Enrico Palomar in his capacity as The
Postmaster General
1) Facts
The case before us now is a petition for declaratory relief against
Postmaster General Enrico Palomar, parying that judgment be rendered
declaring its Caltex Hooded Pump Contest not to be violative of the Postal
Law, and ordering respondent to allow petitioner the use of the mails to
bring the contest to the attention of the public.
In 1960, Caltex launched a promotional scheme called Caltex Hooded
Pump Contest which calls for participants to estimate the actual number
of liters a hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense during a
specified period. The contest is open to all motor vehicle owners and/or
licensed drivres. There is neither a fee or consideration required nor a
purchase required to be made. The forms are available upon request at
each Caltex station and there is also a sealed can where accomplished
entry stubs may be deposited.
Caltex wishes to use mails amongst the media for publicizing about the
contest, thus, Caltex sent representatives to the postal authorities for
advance clearing for the use of mails for the contest. However, the postal
authorities denied their request 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 then appealed.