G.R. No. L-25601. February 21, 1979
LUISA V. VDA. DE GUISON, PAULINA G. CARLOS, JUANITO GUISON, LILIA G. BONIFACIO, RODOLFO V. GUISON, PACITA G. REYES, ESTER G. CRUZ, RICARDO V. GUISON, AND NARCISO GUISON, JR., P…
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, in
Civil Case No. Q-8645, denying the petition to restrain the Chief of the
Philippine Constabulary and the PC Provincial Commander of Rizal
and their agents from interferring with and
obstructing the operation of the La Loma Cockpit on days authorized by
Ordinance No. 64-5990 of the Quezon City Council.
The facts are not disputed.
On January 29, 1960,
the City Council of Quezon City, pursuant to Section
80 of its Charter, Republic Act No. 537, enacted Ordinance No. 60-4346,
allowing the holding of cockfighting on Saturdays in the City after payment of
the prescribed fees and compliance with the requirements mentioned therein. By authority thereof, the petitioners
applied for, and were granted a permit by the Quezon
City Mayor to hold cockfights at the La Loma Cockpit on Saturdays of every
week. However, the then Chief of the
Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine Constabulary ordered the petitioners
to stop the holding of cockfights on said days, and as a result, the
petitioners filed an action for declaratory relief with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Quezon
City Branch, which was docketed therein as Spec. Civil Action No. 6446. After trial, the court rendered judgment
holding that Ordinance No. 60-4346 is illegal and null and void, being ultra
vires.
On August 10, 1964,
the Quezon City Council passed Ordinance No. 64-5990,
authorizing the City Mayor to issue permits to hold cockfights on Saturdays and
certain legal holidays and other week days upon payment of the prescribed
fees. Upon application, the petitioners
were granted a permit to hold cockfights at the La Loma Cockpit on Saturdays,
and certain weekdays, more particularly, on March 11, 1965.
However, in the morning of the said day, the PC Provincial Commander of Rizal ordered the petitioners not to hold cockfights on
said day, otherwise, the cockpit would be raided and closed. So, on March 18, 1965, the petitioners filed
a petition for injunction with the Court of First instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, to
restrain the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary and the PC Provincial
Commander of Rizal from interferring
with and in any manner obstructing the operations of the La Loma Cockpit on
dates authorized by the Quezon City Mayor pursuant to
Ordinance No. 64-5990 of the Quezon City Council.[1]
The respondents moved to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that Ordinance
No. 64-5990 of the Quezon City Council is null and void,
citing this Court’s decision in the case of Quimsing
vs. Lachica;[2]
and that the action is barred by the prior judgment rendered in Special Civil
Action No. 6446, wherein the court declared Ordinance No. 60-4346 of the Quezon City Council, allowing the petitioners to hold
cockfighting on Saturdays of each week at the La Loma Cockpit, null and void,
being ultra vires.[3]
The court, however, denied the motion to dismiss on April 4, 1965 and ordered the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P5,000.00.[4]
Accordingly, on May 3, 1965,
the respondents filed their answer to the petition, with a motion for the
reconsideration of the order of April
14, 1965.[5]
On July 14, 1965, the
parties submitted a stipulation of facts wherein they agreed that:
“1. The La Loma
Cockpit, owned by the petitioners, has the corresponding permit to conduct a
cockpit for the year 1965, as shown by a photostat
copy of Quezon City Mayor’s Permit No. 544-46 marked
Annex ‘A’ hereof, and has paid the municipal license fee for the first quarter
of 1965, shown by a photostat copy of the receipt of
payment of P1,500.00 marked Annex ‘A-1’ hereof;
“2. The City Mayor of Quezon
City granted petitioners the permission to hold cockfighting at the La Loma
Cockpit on March 11, 1965, as shown by the corresponding permit, a photostat copy of which is marked as Annex ‘B’ hereof, and
the municipal license fee therefor in the sum of
P100.00 was paid, as shown by a photostat copy of
the receipt thereof marked as Annex ‘B-1’ hereof;
“3. Municipal License No. 65-L-285 was issued by
the City Treasurer of Quezon City to the La Loma
Cockpit for the operation of a cockpit for the year 1965, as shown by a photostat copy thereof marked Annex ‘C’ hereof;
“4. The municipal license fee for the second
quarter of 1965 has been paid by petitioners, as shown by a photostat
copy of the corresponding receipt marked Annex ‘D’ hereof;
“5. That the cockpit of the petitioners has
been found structurally safe by the City Engineer of Quezon
City, as shown by a certificate, a photostat copy of
which is marked Annex ‘E’ hereof;
“6. The Health Department of Quezon
City has found the cockpit building of the petitioners to have met sanitary requirements,
as shown by photostat copies of the Certificate of
Inspection marked Annex ‘F’ hereof; Record of Final Inspection marked Annex
‘F-1’ hereof; Certificate of Occupancy marked Annex ‘F-2’ hereof, and Sanitary
Permit marked Annex ‘F-3’ hereof;
“7. In the morning of March 11, 1965, after the
La Loma Cockpit was opened for cockfighting operations but before any
cockfighting was done, a P.C. Officer, in representation of the respondent
P.C. Provincial Commander of Rizal, came to said
cockpit and gave notice to the persons in charge that cockfighting on that days
was illegal and, unless the La Loma Cockpit desisted from operating said
cockpit on that day, the P.C. would raid the place and stop operations therein;
accordingly, the petitioners refrained to hold any cockfighting that day, although
they had the corresponding permit of the City Mayor, as shown by Annex ‘B’ hereof,
but the same P.C. officer assured the undersigned counsel for the petitioners
that the P.C. Provincial Commander of Rizal would see
counsel in the afternoon of the same day to discuss the matter;
“8. In the afternoon of March 11, 1965,
undersigned counsel for the petitioners saw the said respondent P.C. Provincial
Commander at his headquarters in Pasig, Rizal, and the latter informed counsel that cockfighting on
Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays was illegal according to the
opinion of the Solicitor General so that, unless the petitioners could obtain a
judicial injunction like that obtained by cockpit operators in the adjoining
municipalities, the P.C. would raid the La Loma Cockpit if it was operated on
those dates, and this was notwithstanding Ordinance No. 5990 of Quezon City and
the permit granted by the Mayor’s Office of Quezon City;
“9. The City Mayor of Quezon City had not given the
respondents any written request to stop operations of the La Loma Cockpit on March 11, 1965 or on any other dates
authorized under Ordinance No. 5990;
“10. In Civil Case No. 6446 of this Hon. Court,
entitled “The testate Estate of Narciso Guison versus Col. Jose Maristela,
as Chief of the Criminal Investigating Servince of
the Philippine Constabulary”, for declaratory relief, judgment was
rendered declaring null and void Ordinance No. 60-4346 of Quezon
City and no appeal from said judgment was perfected;
“11. The herein petitioners succeeded as heirs to
the said estate of Narciso Guizon;
“12. On January
7, 1965, the City Fiscal of Quezon City
rendered an Opinion, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘G’
hereof.”[6]
On the basis of the foregoing stipulation of facts and the
memoranda submitted by the parties, the court, on September 24, 1965, issued an order denying the petition
for lack of cause of action and lifted the writ of preliminary injunction
previously issued.[7]
The petitioners filed a motion for the reconsideration of this order,[8]
but the court denied the said motion on December
7, 1965. The trial court,
however, stayed the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction pending
appeal.[9]
Subsequently, the petitioners appealed to this Court for a review of the question
of law involved. On July 25, 1966, this Court dissolved the
restraining order staying the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction
pending appeal.
The appellants have assigned the following errors:
1.
The trial court erred in not
finding that the respondents have no police authority in Quezon City;
2.
The trial court erred in not
finding that the respondents have no personality or are not the real parties in
interest to question the validity of Ordinance No. 5990 of the Quezon City Council;
3.
The trial court erred in holding
that the judgment in Civil Case No. 6446 was a bar to the instant proceedings;
and
4.
The trial court erred in holding
that the petitioners have no cause of action.
The appeal is without merit.
The action is injunctive, and, in a way, prospective, seeking to
restrain the respondents from interferring with and
obstructing the operation of the La Loma Cockpit in any of the date or dates
authorized by Ordinance No. 64-5990 of the Quezon
City Council. After the rendition of the
judgment in this case, however, certain events took place and several laws have
been enacted repealing the ordinance relied upon by the petitioners, as to
render the issues raised by them moot and academic. Thus, the appellants claim that under the
Charter of Quezon City, the police or law enforcement
authority is vested exclusively upon the City Mayor, and the intervention of
the Philippine Constabulary and other police agencies in the maintenance of
peace and order or in law enforcement within the City is permissible only if
the City Mayor requests their assistance where public interest and safety
require it. However, upon the issuance
of Proclamation 1081 on September 21, 1972, placing the country under martial
law, and the subsequent enactment of Presidential Decree Nos. 421, 482, 531,
641, and 765, integrating the police forces, jails, and fire departments, and
placing them under the administrative supervision and control of the Chief,
Philippine Constabulary, as Director General of the Integrated National
Police, the issue is moot and academic.
The issues raised were likewise rendered moot and academic with the
enactment of Presidential Decree No. 449, otherwise named as the Cockfighting
Law of 1974, which gave the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary the authority
to supervise the holding of cockfights and the operation and maintenance of
cockpits.
As to whether or not the permit issued by the Quezon
City Mayor to the petitioners to hold cockfighting at the La Loma Cockpit on
weekdays, pursuant to Ordinance No. 64-5990, is valid, the cases of Quimsing vs. Lachica,[10]
and Chief of the Philippine Constabulary vs. Sabungan
Bagong Silang, Inc., et al.,[11]
are in point. In said cases, this Court
ruled that an ordinance authorizing the holding of cockfighting or pintakasi at the discretion of the municipal mayor on days
other than those authorized under Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised
Administrative Code, is null and void, despite the provisions of Republic Act
No. 938 authorizing the municipal or city board or council of the municipality
to regulate the establishment, maintenance and operation of cockpits within its
territorial jurisdiction. Since the permit
to hold cockfighting on weekdays was issued pursuant to an invalid ordinance,
the petitioners have no cause of action.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, affirmed. Costs against the
appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, (Chairman), Antonio, Santos,
and Abad
Santos, JJ., concur.
Barredo and
Aquino, JJ., no part.
[1]
Record on Appeal, p. 1.
[2]
112 Phil. 110.
[3]
Record on Appeal, p. 11.
[4] Id.,
p. 41.
[5] Id.,
p. 43.
[6] Id.,
pp. 60-65.
[7] Id.,
p. 121.
[8] Id.,
p. 127.
[9] Id.,
p. 160.
[10]
112 Phil. 110.
[11]
L-22609, February 28, 1966;
16 SCRA 336.