STATUTORY CASESCase 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 EnricoPalomar, parying that judgment be rendered declaring its Caltex Hooded Pump Contest notto be violative of the Postal Law, and ordering respondent to allow petitioner the use of the mailsto 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 eachCaltex 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 andthere 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 sentrepresentatives 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 1983of the Revised Administrative Code (Anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law), which prohibitsthe 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 threatenedCaltex 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 declaratoryrelief.The court ruled that the petitioner does not violate the Postal Law and the respondent has noright to bar the public distribution or said rules by the mails?. The respondent then appealed. 2) Issue(s) a) Whether or not the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief? b) Whether or not the proposed Caltex Hooded Pump Contest? violates the Postal Law held\\ Recapitulating, we hold that the petition herein states a sufficient cause of action for declaratoryrelief, and that the Caltex Hooded Pump Contest as described in the rules submitted by theappellee does not transgress the provisions of the Postal Law.ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. No costs