G.R No. L-29881 - AUGUST 1988 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R No. L-29881August 31, 1988Enrico Palomar vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-73602August 31, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Robert L. Calicdan G.R. No. L-75775August 31, 1988Domingo Sumbillo, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-80902August 31, 1988Benguet Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-81490August 31, 1988Hagonoy Water District vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-31931August 31, 1988Fortunato De Leon vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-32392August 31, 1988Aurea Aguilar vs. Ramon Blanco G.R. No. L-44143August 31, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Eusebio Nazario G.R. No. L-46575August 31, 1988Jose Limjoco vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-49686August 31, 1988Felix Gochan & Sons Realty Corporation vs. Vicente Cañada G.R. Nos. L-76724-6August 31, 1988Unitran/Bachelor Express, Inc. vs. Jose Olvis G.R. Nos. L-73131-32August 31, 1988Far East Bank & Trust Company vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. Nos. L-76579-82G.R. No. L-80504August 31, 1988Benedicto Rodriguez vs. Carlos Galvadores G.R. No. L-77369August 31, 1988Hyopsung Maritime Company, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-75195August 29, 1988Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. vs. Hon. Cristeto D. Dinopol G.R. No. L-31379August 29, 1988Compañía Maritima vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-33573August 29, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Lamberto Tapeno G.R. No. L-34122August 29, 1988Fructuoso Garcia vs. Hon. Abelardo Aportadera G.R. No. L-45745August 29, 1988Ireneo Abellera vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. L-47817August 29, 1988Jovita Sales vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-48724August 29, 1988Celestino Pahilanga vs. Hon. Artemon D. Luna G.R. No. L-52732August 29, 1988F.F. Cruz and Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-66478August 29, 1988Sancho R. Jacinto vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-71552August 30, 1988Remedios Ortaliz-Lamayo vs. Felizardo G. Baterbonia G.R. No. L-73503August 30, 1988Benjamin Belisario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-73839August 30, 1988Mary Johnston Hospital vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-75886August 30, 1988Concepcion Roque vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-76483August 30, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Avero G.R. No. L-76728August 30, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Cruz G.R. No. L-78656August 30, 1988Trans World Airlines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-80814August 30, 1988Cornelio Godoy vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-81188August 30, 1988Tagum Doctors Ent. vs. Gregorio Apsay G.R. No. L-30056August 30, 1988Marcelo Agcaoili vs. Gov't Service Insurance System G.R. No. L-30381August 30, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of First Instance of Manila G.R. No. L-32798August 30, 1988Silvino Enverzo Bernal vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-34229August 30, 1988Alberto Mendoza vs. V. Enriquez Furniture G.R. No. L-35126August 30, 1988Jacinto Flores, et al. vs. Filipino Hand Embroidery Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-35618August 30, 1988Director of Lands vs. Hon. Numeriano Estenzo G.R. No. L-36035August 30, 1988Nelita Fonseca vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-49118August 30, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Leticia V. Capitin G.R. No. L-55132August 30, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Men Abad G.R. No. L-62699August 30, 1988Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Antonio P. Solano G.R. No. L-65647August 30, 1988The People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Flores G.R. No. L-66520August 30, 1988Eduardo C. Tañedo vs. J. Juanito A. Bernad G.R. No. L-80609August 23, 1988Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-34341August 22, 1988Priscilla Susan Po vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-74513August 19, 1988Herminio Toribio vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-27829August 19, 1988Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs. Walfrido De Los Angeles G.R. No. L-28776August 19, 1988Simeon Del Rosario vs. Shell Company of the Philippines Limited G.R. No. L-33910August 19, 1988Silva Pipe Workers Union-Natu vs. Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corporation G.R. No. L-47475August 19, 1988Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. Hon. Jose H. Tecson G.R. No. L-49407August 19, 1988National Development Company vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-52019August 19, 1988Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. vs. City of Iloilo G.R. No. L-54323August 19, 1988Jose L. Lopez vs. Enrique L. S. Villaruel G.R. No. L-62781August 19, 1988Pan-Asiatic Travel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-66826August 19, 1988Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. Nos. L-71986-87August 19, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Virgie O. Andiza G.R. Nos. L-76649-51August 19, 198820th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. L-46281-83August 19, 1988Coconut Coop. Marketing. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-71711August 18, 1988PNOC-Exploration Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-73836August 18, 1988Antolin T. Naguiat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-75997August 18, 1988Hospicio De San Jose De Barili vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-81446August 18, 1988Bonifacia Sy Po vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-81785August 18, 1988Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. Carmelo Noriel G.R. No. L-82735August 18, 1988Crisostomo Medina vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-33493August 18, 1988Kapisanan Ng Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad Co vs. Atty. Gregorio Fajardo, et al. G.R. No. L-46244August 18, 1988Lirag, Manalac, Sarangaya, and Tanco Securities vs. Hon. Ricardo D. Galano G.R. No. L-56612August 18, 1988Eliseo B. Yusay vs. Midpantao L. Adil G.R. Nos. L-32444-46August 18, 1988National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. NWSA Consolidated Unions G.R. Nos. L-33058-9August 18, 1988Edgarino L. Espina vs. Provincial Board of Southern Leyte G.R. Nos. L-55103-04August 18, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Cesar Legaspi G.R. No. L-75293August 17, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Joaquinito Hacbang G.R. No. L-40314August 17, 1988Lilian Uytengsu Liu vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-50054August 17, 1988Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-60287August 17, 1988Jose Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals A.M. No. P-86-33August 15, 1988Filipina Yap Sy vs. Carmelito D. Catajan G.R. No. L-77765August 15, 1988Sebastian Cosculluela vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-80648August 15, 1988PSBA - Manila vs. Carmelo C. Noriel, et al. G.R. No. L- 41383August 15, 1988Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Romeo F. Edu, et al. G.R. No. L-29445August 15, 1988Brigida Barde, et al. vs. Socorro Posiquit, et al. G.R. No. L-32217August 15, 1988Mercedes Sy vs. Judge Dominador C. Mina, et al. G.R. No. L-33851August 15, 1988Marcopper Mining Corporation vs. Hon. Jesus V. Abeleda, et al. G.R. No. L-43726August 15, 1988Church of Christ vs. Pelegrino Vallespin, et al. G.R. No. L-45349August 15, 1988Newton Jison, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-45351August 15, 1988Lourdes Delgado vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-48269August 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Rizal B. Idnay G.R. No. L-51570August 15, 1988Philippine Veterans Affairs Office vs. Brigida V. Segundo G.R. No. L-57473August 15, 1988San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. Nos. L-77737-38August 15, 1988Christina Marie Dempsey vs. Regional Trial Court G.R. No. L-70462August 11, 1988Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Appellate Court G.R. No. L-75852August 11, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Mauro Del Pilar G.R. No. L-78592August 11, 1988Municipality of Malolos vs. Libangang Malolos, Inc. G.R. No. L-29280August 11, 1988People's Bank and Trust Company vs. Syvel's Incorporated G.R. No. L-40069August 11, 1988Pedro Gacutan, et al. vs. Melquiades S. Sucaldito G.R. No. L-64848August 11, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo S. Elegino G.R. No. L-74910August 10, 1988Andres Soriano III vs. Manuel Yuzon G.R. No. L-71173August 9, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo D. Desuyo G.R. No. L-73464August 9, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Edmundo De Guzman G.R. No. L-34526August 9, 1988Hijo Plantation Inc., et al. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. L-36770August 9, 1988Emilio Damasco vs. Teresa Damasco G.R. No. L-46654August 9, 1988Lupo S. Carbajal vs. Govern. Serv. Insur. System G.R. No. L-77691August 8,1988Paterno R. Canlas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-77707August 8, 1988Pedro W. Guerzon vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-41085August 8, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Jesus B. Viray G.R. No. L-49699August 8, 1988Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. vs. Constante A. Ancheta G.R. No. L-50386August 8, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Jose San Buenaventura G.R. NoS. L-44410-11August 5, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Antonio B. Irenea G.R. No. L-63552August 5, 1988Francisco Tan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 71464August 4, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Estrebella G.R. No. L-23771August 4, 1988Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Co. G.R. No. L-31056August 4, 1988Lucila O. Manzanal vs. Mauro A. Ausejo G.R. No. L-50871August 4, 1988Carlos Velasco vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. L-51736August 4, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Aragon G.R. No. L-74489August 3, 1988Shin I Industrial (Phil.) vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-77818August 3, 1988National Association of Free Trade Unions (Naflu-Tucp) vs. Bureau of Labor Relations (BlR) G.R. No. L-79576August 3, 1988Celso M. Larga vs. Santiago Ranada, Jr. G.R. No. L-24957August 3, 1988Paulino V. Nera vs. Auditor General Enrico Palomar vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Robert L. CalicdanDomingo Sumbillo, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Benguet Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsHagonoy Water District vs. National Labor Relations CommissionFortunato De Leon vs. Court of AppealsAurea Aguilar vs. Ramon BlancoPeople of the Philippines vs. Eusebio NazarioJose Limjoco vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al.Felix Gochan & Sons Realty Corporation vs. Vicente CañadaUnitran/Bachelor Express, Inc. vs. Jose OlvisFar East Bank & Trust Company vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Benedicto Rodriguez vs. Carlos GalvadoresHyopsung Maritime Company, Ltd. vs. Court of AppealsDavao Light and Power Company, Inc. vs. Hon. Cristeto D. DinopolCompañía Maritima vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Lamberto TapenoFructuoso Garcia vs. Hon. Abelardo AportaderaIreneo Abellera vs. Secretary of LaborJovita Sales vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Celestino Pahilanga vs. Hon. Artemon D. LunaF.F. Cruz and Company, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsSancho R. Jacinto vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtRemedios Ortaliz-Lamayo vs. Felizardo G. BaterboniaBenjamin Belisario vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtMary Johnston Hospital vs. National Labor Relations CommissionConcepcion Roque vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Dominador AveroPeople of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo CruzTrans World Airlines vs. Court of AppealsCornelio Godoy vs. Court of AppealsTagum Doctors Ent. vs. Gregorio ApsayMarcelo Agcaoili vs. Gov't Service Insurance SystemRepublic of the Philippines vs. Court of First Instance of ManilaSilvino Enverzo Bernal vs. Court of AppealsAlberto Mendoza vs. V. Enriquez FurnitureJacinto Flores, et al. vs. Filipino Hand Embroidery Company, Inc.Director of Lands vs. Hon. Numeriano EstenzoNelita Fonseca vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Leticia V. CapitinPeople of the Philippines vs. Francisco Men AbadDevelopment Bank of the Philippines vs. Antonio P. SolanoThe People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto FloresEduardo C. Tañedo vs. J. Juanito A. BernadPhilippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPriscilla Susan Po vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Herminio Toribio vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPhilippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs. Walfrido De Los AngelesSimeon Del Rosario vs. Shell Company of the Philippines LimitedSilva Pipe Workers Union-Natu vs. Filipino Pipe & Foundry CorporationManotok Realty, Inc. vs. Hon. Jose H. TecsonNational Development Company vs. Court of AppealsIloilo Bottlers, Inc. vs. City of IloiloJose L. Lopez vs. Enrique L. S. VillaruelPan-Asiatic Travel Corporation vs. Court of AppealsBank of the Philippine Islands vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Virgie O. Andiza20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Coconut Coop. Marketing. vs. Court of AppealsPNOC-Exploration Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionAntolin T. Naguiat vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtHospicio De San Jose De Barili vs. National Labor Relations CommissionBonifacia Sy Po vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al.Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. Carmelo NorielCrisostomo Medina vs. Court of AppealsKapisanan Ng Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad Co vs. Atty. Gregorio Fajardo, et al.Lirag, Manalac, Sarangaya, and Tanco Securities vs. Hon. Ricardo D. GalanoEliseo B. Yusay vs. Midpantao L. AdilNational Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. NWSA Consolidated UnionsEdgarino L. Espina vs. Provincial Board of Southern LeytePeople of the Philippines vs. Cesar LegaspiPeople of the Philippines vs. Joaquinito HacbangLilian Uytengsu Liu vs. Court of AppealsEternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of AppealsJose Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsFilipina Yap Sy vs. Carmelito D. CatajanSebastian Cosculluela vs. Court of AppealsPSBA - Manila vs. Carmelo C. Noriel, et al.Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Romeo F. Edu, et al.Brigida Barde, et al. vs. Socorro Posiquit, et al.Mercedes Sy vs. Judge Dominador C. Mina, et al.Marcopper Mining Corporation vs. Hon. Jesus V. Abeleda, et al.Church of Christ vs. Pelegrino Vallespin, et al.Newton Jison, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Lourdes Delgado vs. Republic of the PhilippinesPeople of the Philippines vs. Rizal B. IdnayPhilippine Veterans Affairs Office vs. Brigida V. SegundoSan Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionChristina Marie Dempsey vs. Regional Trial CourtPan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Mauro Del PilarMunicipality of Malolos vs. Libangang Malolos, Inc.People's Bank and Trust Company vs. Syvel's IncorporatedPedro Gacutan, et al. vs. Melquiades S. SucalditoPeople of the Philippines vs. Eduardo S. EleginoAndres Soriano III vs. Manuel YuzonPeople of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo D. DesuyoPeople of the Philippines vs. Edmundo De GuzmanHijo Plantation Inc., et al. vs. Central Bank of the PhilippinesEmilio Damasco vs. Teresa DamascoLupo S. Carbajal vs. Govern. Serv. Insur. SystemPaterno R. Canlas vs. Court of AppealsPedro W. Guerzon vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Jesus B. VirayPerla Compania De Seguros, Inc. vs. Constante A. AnchetaPeople of the Philippines vs. Jose San BuenaventuraPeople of the Philippines vs. Antonio B. IreneaFrancisco Tan vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Romeo EstrebellaCommissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Co.Lucila O. Manzanal vs. Mauro A. AusejoCarlos Velasco vs. Amado G. InciongPeople of the Philippines vs. Rolando AragonShin I Industrial (Phil.) vs. National Labor Relations CommissionNational Association of Free Trade Unions (Naflu-Tucp) vs. Bureau of Labor Relations (BlR)Celso M. Larga vs. Santiago Ranada, Jr.Paulino V. Nera vs. Auditor General
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R No. L-29881 August 31, 1988
HON. ENRICO PALOMAR,petitioner-appellant,
vs.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XIV and PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC.,respondents-appellees.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Parades, Poblador, Nazareno, Azada and Tomacruz Law Office for respondents.
PARAS,J.:
This is a petition for review seeking to set aside the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Manila*,Branch XIV, dated November 14, 1968, in Civil Case No. 74538, holding hat "Fraud Order No. 2" issued by the petitioner is void, and permanently enjoining the petitioner from enforcing and implementing said fraud order.
The factual background of this case is as follows:
Sometime in August 1968, the private respondent started a sales promotion scheme designated as "Grand Slam" for its "Breeze", "Rinso", "Lifebuoy" and "Lux" products wherein any person who submits to it matching left and right halves of pictures of any article wins that article as his prize. Half-pictures were found in the labels of the products promoted. In the advertisements for said scheme which were published in newspapers, it was also announced that free half-photos of prizes might also be obtained by writing to J. Cunanan & Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2288, Manila. Only one free half-photo was given for every request which should be accompanied with a self-addressed stamped envelope. The prizes were P1.00, P10.00, transistor radios, wrist watches, sewing machines, TV sets, refrigerators and Volkswagen 1200. (Rollo, p. 44-45; Petitioner's Briefs, p. 4).
On October 7, 1968, the petitioner in his official capacity as Postmaster General, issued "Fraud Order No. 2" against the private respondent declaring the latter's "Grand Slam" promotion to be a lottery within the purview of the Postal Law and directed all postmasters and employees of the Bureau of Posts to return to the sender any mail matter mailed by or addressed to the private respondent and J. Cunanan & Co., Inc. or any of their agents or representatives, with the notation "Fraudulent" plainly written or stamped on the cover of such matter. (Rollo, p. 40).
On October 15, 1968, private respondent filed a complaint for mandatory injunction with preliminary mandatory injunction against the petitioner before the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that in the promotional scheme of "Grand Slam", there was no consideration involved, hence it was not a lottery, and that "Fraud Order No. 2" was improper, and praying that petitioner be enjoined from implementing the said order. (Rollo, p. 44-48).
On October 16, 1968, the respondent Court of First Instance issued an Order allowing a writ of preliminary injunction, upon the filing of a bond in the sum of P1,000.00 and ordered the petitioner, his agent or representative to desist and refrain from enforcing or implementing "Fraud Order No. 2" (Rollo, p. 49).
On October 17, 1968, the petitioner submitted his answer to the complaint with a prayer to lift the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and opposition to application for a writ of prelinidnary mandatory injunction.ℒαwρhi৷(Rollo, pp. 50-57).
After due hearing, on November 14, 1968, the trial court rendered its judgment holding, among others, that private respondent's promotional scheme known as "Grand Slam" was not a lottery as the element of consideration was lacking. (Rollo, pp. 58-61).
On November 20, 1968, the petitioner, through the Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal, (Rollo, p. 2), and the Original Record of aforesaid case was forwarded to this Court by the lower Court (Rollo, p. 1).
It appearing that the appeal was perfected after the approval of R.A. 5440 defendant-appellant was required in the resolution of March 26, 1969, to file a petition for review on certiorari of'the decision of the Court of First Instance (Rollo, p. 16), which petition was filed on May 15, 1969 (Rollo, pp. 24-39).
In the resolution of May 20, 1969, this Court gave due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 65).
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the element of consideration is present in the Grand Slam promotion of the respondent company, which, together with the elements of prize and chance, constitute the "lottery" prohibited by the Postal Law.
The petitioner contends that there is consideration because one has to buy any of respondent company's four products, namely, "Breeze", "Rinso", "Lifebuoy", and "Lux", to have a "Grand Slam" pack which will enable the purchaser to participate in the scheme. The rule that half-photo of prizes may be obtained free by writing to the Accountant of the company for which a self-addressed stamped envelope should be furnished does not eliminate the element of consideration because not all participants can be expected to obtain the required half-photos by mail mainly because said rule is announced only in advertisements but not in the packs of sponsor's products and also because while some of the products cost P0.10 only, the request by mail costs P0.20 and therefore more expensive.
Petitioner admitted that the element of consideration may be absent in the case of those persons who will buy the company's products containing the wrappers to participate in the Grand Slam, regardless of the inducement to participate in the games and to win prizes, but argued that as regards those persons who will buy any one of these products merely to participate in the Grand Slam scheme in order to win prizes and to whom the scheme is precisely directed, it means the payment of sums of money for the consideration of participating in the lottery. With respect to these persons, the element of consideration is obviously present. (Rollo, p. 33-34).
On the other hand, private respondent countered that with or without its Grand Slam promotion, the products subject of the said sales drive are bought at the same usual price; with or without the promotion, no person is required to pay more than the current cost of the said products. A person, in order to obtain any of the free prizes, need not buy the products promoted, he need not even write private respondent's auditors for the free half photos. Since not all buyers of said respondent's products participate in the promotion, others could ask the half-photos from them; still others may scrounge in cans and other garbage receptacles. There is absolutely nothing in the rules of the promotion that requires as a condition for participation that one must buy any of the products promoted. Even if those who wish to participate should buy the products promoted, still the element of consideration is absent in the promotion. As above stated, the prices of said products were not increased let alone increased because of the promotion. Participants need not pay anything of value just for the chance to get a prize; the value paid is for the product which the buyer linmediately receives and not for the bare chance to win any prize. (Brief for Respondent-Appellees pp. 9-10).
The issue in this case has already been settled by this Court; the latest case on the matter isPhilippine Refining Company vs. Palomar,G.R. No. L-29062, 148 SCRA 313, [1987] wherein this Court ruled:
It appears that the Philippine Refining Company, herein appellee, resorted to two schemes to promote the sale of its products: Breeze Easy Money and CAMIA Lucky-Key Hunt; both of which envisioned the giving away for free of certain prizes (without additional consideration) for the purchase of Breeze soap and CAMIA cooking oil. In other words, the participants would get the exact value of the prize for the goods plus the chance of winning in the scheme. No one would be required to pay more than the usual price of the products.
This Court has consistently ruled that a plan whereby prizes can be obtained without any additional consideration (when a product is purchased) is not a lottery (Uy v. Palomar, L-23248, Febuary 28, 1969; U.S. v. Baguio, 39 Phil. 862; Caltex (Phil.) Inc. v. Postmaster-General, 18 SCRA 247). It is thus clear that the schemes in the case at bar are not lotteries.
PREMISES CONSIDERED,the petition isDENIEDfor lack of merit, and the assailed decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIV, isAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sariniento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Footnotes