21/08/2026
SUPREME COURT ORDERS MALL TO GIVE RAFFLE PRIZE TO SECURITY GUARD’S WIFE
The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered a shopping mall to award the grand prize won by the wife of one of its security guards, ruling that once a raffle participant is declared a winner, the right to the prize becomes concrete and enforceable.
In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling ordering Shopping Center Management Corporation (SCMC) to deliver to Nelly Galutera, the wife of an SCMC security guard, the brand-new Suzuki S-Presso Special Edition MT she won in a promotional raffle.
In April 2022, SCMC conducted a raffle promotion in SM City Cauayan. Nelly Galutera was declared the grand prize winner of a brand-new Suzuki S-Presso Special Edition MT.
SCMC withheld the prize, claiming Galutera was disqualified under Promo Mechanics No. 22, which excludes employees of SCMC, its affiliates, mall tenants, agencies, service providers, and their relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.
SCMC argued that Galutera’s husband, Rodel Alejo Galutera was a security guard deployed at Banco de Oro (BDO) inside SM City Cauayan. Rodel was employed by Ranniag Security Services, Inc., which was hired by BDO.
Galutera filed a complaint before the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Both the DTI Adjudication Officer and the DTI Secretary dismissed her complaint, ruling that her husband was an employee of a service provider of a mall tenant (BDO).
The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently ruled in favor of Galutera and ordered the grant of the grant prize to Galutera or its current prize brand-new Suzuki S-Presso Special Edition MT or its equivalent in cash. This prompted the shopping mall to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.
In affirming the ruling of the appellate court, the high court cited Article 1370 of the Civil Code, clear contract terms control. Security guards are employees of their respective security agencies, not of the client entity to which they are assigned.
It underscored that the DTI’s findings are not conclusive here because the issue involves a purely legal question as it pertains to the interpretation of Promo Mechanics No. 22 under Article 1370 of the Civil Code, rather than technical administrative matters.
The highest bench found that SCMC failed to prove that Galutera exceeded the income/property thresholds for indigent litigants. Merely making purchases to obtain raffle entries does not automatically disqualify her from being an indigent party.
It held that Galutera is NOT disqualified and emphasized that the declaration of a raffle winner creates a binding right to the prize, which the establishment must honor in accordance with the terms of the promotion.
