The Supreme Court has denied the petition of Shopping Center Management Corporation (SCMC) and ordered it to deliver to Nelly A. Galutera the Suzuki S-Presso Special Edition MT she won in a raffle promotion, or to pay her the equivalent value of the prize.
The Court affirmed the Decision dated October 28, 2024 and the Resolution dated May 27, 2025 of the Court of Appeals (CA), ruling that Galutera is not disqualified under the promo mechanics.
The Case
In April 2022, SCMC conducted a raffle promotion in SM City Cauayan. Galutera was proclaimed the grand prize-winner, entitling her to a brand-new Suzuki S-Presso Special Edition MT.
SCMC, however, withheld the turnover of the prize on the ground that Galutera is disqualified under Promo Mechanics No. 22, which excludes non-Filipino citizens, employees of SCMC, its affiliates, mall tenants of SM City Cauayan, agencies, service providers, their respective officers, and the relatives of the employees up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.
SCMC asserted that Galutera is disqualified because she is the wife of Rodel Alejo Galutera (Rodel), a security guard deployed at the Banco de Oro (BDO) branch inside SM City Cauayan. Rodel is employed by Ranniag Security Services, Inc. (Ranniag Security), the security agency engaged by BDO.
Galutera filed a complaint before the DTI Regional Office for violation of Republic Act No. 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines. On September 9, 2022, the DTI Adjudication Officer dismissed the complaint, holding that Galutera is disqualified as a relative within the second degree of affinity of an employee of a service provider and mall tenant of SM City Cauayan. On appeal, the DTI Secretary affirmed this in a Decision dated June 29, 2023.
Galutera then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, which granted the petition and found that the DTI committed grave abuse of discretion. SCMC's Motion for Reconsideration was denied, prompting it to file the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The Issue
The Court resolved: (1) whether the findings of the DTI are conclusive upon the courts under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; (2) whether Galutera is disqualified from litigating as an indigent party; and (3) whether Promo Mechanics No. 22 disqualifies Galutera from the raffle promotion.
The Ruling
The Court held that the Petition is bereft of merit.
In its disposition, the Court ruled: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28, 2024 and the Resolution dated May 27, 2025 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 180611 are AFFIRMED."
The Court further ordered: "Petitioner Shopping Center Management Corporation is ORDERED to deliver to respondent Nelly A. Galutera the Suzuki S-Presso Special Edition MT awarded to her, or, in lieu thereof, to pay her the equivalent value of the prize."
By the Numbers
- April 2022 — SCMC conducted the raffle promotion in SM City Cauayan
- September 9, 2022 — DTI Adjudication Officer dismissed the complaint
- June 29, 2023 — DTI Secretary affirmed the dismissal
- October 28, 2024 — CA Decision granting Galutera's petition
- May 27, 2025 — CA Resolution denying reconsideration
- PHP 300,000.00 — property value threshold for indigent litigants under Rule 141
- Promo Mechanics No. 22 — the disqualification clause at issue
The Court's Reasoning
On primary jurisdiction, the Court explained that while the doctrine remains applicable, the findings of the DTI cannot be deemed conclusive because the issue does not involve technical or intricate matters of fact requiring administrative expertise. The material facts were undisputed, and the controversy involved a question of law—the proper interpretation of Promo Mechanics No. 22 pursuant to Article 1370 of the Civil Code. The Court also noted that Republic Act No. 7394, through Articles 159 and 162, recognizes that DTI jurisdiction does not foreclose judicial recourse.
On Galutera's status as an indigent litigant, the Court found SCMC's contention unavailing. Her ability to obtain raffle entries through purchases does not establish that her income exceeds the threshold or that she owns real property beyond the allowable value. The Court added that SCMC failed to timely raise the issue before the CA.
On the interpretation of Promo Mechanics No. 22, the Court adopted the CA's reading. Applying Article 1370 of the Civil Code, the Court held that the phrase referring to relatives of employees up to the second degree refers only to employees of SCMC, its affiliates, mall tenants, agencies, and service providers. Rodel is an employee of Ranniag Security, which is the service provider of BDO, not of SCMC. The Court noted it is settled that security guards are employees of their security agency and not of the entity to which they are assigned.
The Court held that even assuming ambiguity, the same must be construed against SCMC, which drafted the promo mechanics. It stressed that promo mechanics bind the promoter and create enforceable rights in favor of participants who comply with their terms. In fine, Galutera is not disqualified under Promo Mechanics No. 22.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. E-02121, penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.