Dear Atty. Nico,

My father works as a security guard in one of the prestigious schools in Metro Manila. He is employed under the Aranas Security Agency.

One day, the school that he is working for launched a raffle activity to raise funds for its scholarship program. The grand prize was a brand-new electric car worth P1,500,000.

Feeling lucky, my father bought a raffle ticket. To his surprise, he won the grand prize. However, the school claimed that he was disqualified to join because of a provision in the promo mechanic which stated that among those not qualified to participate in the said raffle were “employees” of the said school.

Is the school correct in not allowing my father to claim the said prize? Thank you for valuable insight.

Marie

Dear Marie,

The school’s claim that your father is not qualified to win the prize due to a rule in the promo mechanic is wrong and inimical to his right.

In the case of Shopping Center Management Corporation v Galutera (G.R. No. E-02121), the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that security guards are employees of their security agency and not of the entity to which they are assigned. Furthermore, even assuming ambiguity, the same must be construed against SCMC, which drafted the promo mechanics. To rule otherwise would allow the drafter to benefit from vague language and exclude participants after they have already been declared winners.

Applying the abovementioned ruling to the facts provided, the school must recognize your father as the winner of the grand prize as he is not considered an employee of the same, but of Aranas Security Agency. To state otherwise would be tantamount to injustice and utmost disregard of the promo mechanic which the school uses as an argument.

Atty. Nico A. Antonio