G.R. No. L-4010; November 29, 1951
NIEVES P. ATIENZA, assisted by her husband J. Atienza, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPTAKES OFFICE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Nieves P. Atienza was an authorized agent of the defendant Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) under a contract. Paragraph 7 of this contract stipulated that an agent would be awarded the prize for a seller if she sold a ticket winning any major prize, provided she “shall have purchased from the Sweeptakes Office… no less than five (5) booklets of tickets before the close of the sales of tickets each draw.” The rules, incorporated into the contract, stated sales would close fifteen days before each draw. For the April 27, 1947 draw, the plaintiff purchased only four booklets (two on February 27 and two on March 13). Around March 31, she attempted to buy a fifth booklet but was informed by PCSO field inspectors and the office itself that all booklets had been sold out. A ticket from one of her purchased booklets subsequently won the second prize, entitling the selling agent to a P3,000 award. The PCSO refused her demand for the prize due to her failure to purchase the required five booklets. The case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, and the trial court dismissed her complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the P3,000 seller’s prize despite purchasing only four booklets, based on her claim that her failure to buy the fifth was due to the defendant’s lack of available tickets and that she had substantially complied with the contract.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The right to the seller’s award was conditional upon two explicit requisites: (1) selling a ticket that wins a major prize, and (2) purchasing at least five booklets before the sales close. These were clear conditions precedent. The plaintiff only met the first condition. The Court rejected her substantial compliance argument, holding that nothing in the contract or rules obligated the PCSO to ensure tickets were available for purchase up to the closing date if the authorized quota was already sold out. The 15-day closing rule was for the PCSO’s benefit to make adjustments, not a guarantee of availability. The plaintiff assumed the risk of tickets selling out and failed to secure the required quota. The Court also noted that press releases had warned agents to buy early as the quota was nearly full. The claim that the PCSO had a duty to print additional tickets was without basis in the contract or law, as Act No. 4130 gave the PCSO discretion over the number of tickets. The charge of bad faith was found meritless.