APRIL 23, 2026 | GAERLAN, J.
Case Digest by: Rodolfo Joselito L. Narciso
FACTS OF THE CASE
In April 2022, Shopping Center Management Corporation (SCMC) conducted a raffle promotion in SM City Cauayan, where Nelly Galutera won a brand-new Suzuki S-Presso Special Edition MТ. SCMC, however, withheld the turnover of the prize on the ground that Galutera is disqualified in accordance with Promo Mechanics No. 22, which provides the following:
Not qualified to participate in this raffle promotion: Non-Filipino citizens, employees of SCMC, its affiliates, mall tenants of SM City Cauayan, agencies, service providers, respective officer 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 Galutera, a security guard at Banco de Oro (BDO) branch inside SM City Cauayan.
Aggrieved, Galutera filed a complaint before the DTI Regional Office for violation of Republic Act No. 7394, otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines. The DTI Regional Office dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the DTI Secretary affirmed the DTI Adjudication Officer. On the other hand, the CA granted the petition and found that the DTI committed grave abuse of discretion.
The court applied Article 1370 of the Civil Code and ruled that the Promo Mechanics No. 22 is clear and must be interpreted according to its literal terms. It held that Galutera does not fall under any of the enumerated disqualified categories because Rodel is an employee of Ranniag Security, which is neither an affiliate, mall tenant, agency, nor service provider of SCMC.
ISSUE
Whether or not Promo Mechanics No. 22 disqualifies Galutera from the raffle promotion?
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
The Supreme Court held that the phrase “respective officers and the relatives of employees up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity” refers only to employees of SCМС, its affiliates, mall tenants, agencies, and service providers. Rodel is not an employee of SCMC, nor of its affiliate, tenant, agency, or service provider. He is an employee of Ranniag Security, which is merely the service provider of BDO, not of SCMC.
It is settled that security guards are employees of their security agency and not of the entity to which they are assigned. To treat Galutera as disqualified on the basis of her husband’s employment would require an unwarranted expansion of the employer-employee relationship and a strained interpretation of the promo mechanics. It is therefore not only inconsistent with Article 1370 of the Civil Code, but would also result in an unjust denial of Galutera’s rightful prize.