THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY, AND THE PROVINCIAL COMMANDER OF RIZAL, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF …

The petitioners came to this Court on an original action for
certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, to set aside the
restraining order issued by respondent
Judge on May 16,
1969, in Civil Case No. 11792 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, entitled “Delfin
Dominguez, et al., plaintiffs, versus The Chief of the Philippine Constabulary, et al., defendants;” to stop said Judge
from further taking cognizance of said case; and to order private respondent to
cease and desist from conduct­ing or holding any cockfights on any day of the
week not otherwise permitted by law.

The aforesaid civil case was a complaint for in­junction to stop
the defendants, now petitioners, from stopping the holding of cockfights in the
cockpit of the plaintiff, now
respondent, Delfin Dominguez, which cock­fights had
been authorized on any three
days of each week by resolution No. 112
of the other plaintiff, now respondent, barrio council of Sangandaan,
Caloocan City, passed in its session of May 4, 1969, allegedly to generate “funds
for the purpose of buying medicines, improvement of barrio roads, barrio
playgrounds, athletic equipment and other things needed for the health and safety of barrio folk.” The
resolution was passed, as stated therein, “pursuant to Section 18 of the
Barrio Charter Law, Republic Act No.
3590,” (under which) “the Barrio Council may accept or solicit monies
or contribu­tions from private agencies and individuals.”

As prayed for in the complaint below, respondent Judge, on May
16, 1969, set the preliminary injunction for hearing on May 31, 1969, but at
the same time issued a restraining order in the meantime, ex parte and without bond, ordering the
defendants to refrain “from doing the acts sought to be enjoined,”
namely, preventing or stopping the cockfights authorized in the resolution
and arresting any
persons entering the cockpit on the occasion of the same.

On July 14, 1969 this Court required respondents to answer the
petition and ordered a writ of preliminary injunction to issue to stop
respondent Court from implementing the restraining order and from taking
further cognizance of Civil Case No. 11792, and to stop also private respondent,
as cockpit owner, from conducting or holding any cockfights on any day of the
week not otherwise permitted by law, “whether
for the benefit of barrios or other money-making scheme, subject matter of said
civil case No. 11792.”

Respondent Judge filed his answer in due course, alleging inter alia that the petition was
premature, since petitioners did not oppose the postponement of the hearing on
the preliminary injunction to May 31,
1969, and did not move for a reconsideration of the restraining
order before the commencement of the instant proceeding.

On their part, respondents Delfin
Dominguez and the barrio council of Sangandaan, Caloocan City,
filed a manifestation on August 8, 1969, to the effect
that all barrio councils in said City had been abolished.^[1]

On August 30, 1969
petitioners, commenting on respondents’ manifestation, prayed that judgment be
rendered making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this
Court on July 15, 1969.

Another manifestation was filed by respondent Delfin
Dominguez on November 27, 1969,
pointing out that this case had become moot and academic and asking that it be
dismissed on that ground.

Considering that the avowed purpose of resolution No. 112 of the
barrio council of Sangandaan, Caloocan
City, in authorizing the holding
of cockfights not otherwise allowed by law, was to generate funds for the use
of the barrio, it would seem indeed that the abolition of said barrio council
has rendered this case moot and academic. 
On the other hand, the restraining order complained of was issued for
the benefit not only of the said barrio council but also of the other
plaintiff, herein respondent Delfin Dominguez, the
owner of the cockpit where the
cockfights were to be held.  In view thereof, as well as of the palpable
illegality of the aforesaid resolution,^[2] the mere dismissal of the
instant petition may not provide final and adequate relief.

The barrio council resolution in question runs counter to
Sections 2285 and 2286 of the
Revised Adminis­trative Code, under which cockfighting is permitted only on
legal holidays, for a period not exceeding three days during a local fiesta, or for a similar period during an agricul­tural or industrial
fair.  The prohibition against the holding of cockfights on other days
has not been repealed, amended
or relaxed by the grant of power to the barrio council, in Section 18 of the Revised Barrio Charter (R.A. No. 3590), to
“solicit monies… and other contributions from… private agencies and
individuals.”

In the cases cited at the footnote this Court struck down as invalid municipal
ordinances authorizing cockfights such as those authorized by the barrio
council resolution involved herein. 
Referring to the expedient (so often resorted to as to form a
discernible pattern) of filing complaints against law enforcement officers and
then obtaining from the trial court a restraining order or injunctive writ Mr.
Justice Roberto Concepcion, now Chief Justice,
speaking for the Court in two of those cases (G. R. Nos. L-22308 and 22343-4), made
this advertence: “Thus, several
parties had, through the action and the omission of the judicial branch of the
government, suc­ceeded not only in evading the law, but also in preventing the
executive department from executing and enforcing the same, for over two (2)
years.  Surely, more caution should be
exercised to avoid such occurrence, if we hope to keep the faith of the people
in the courts of justice.”

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered setting aside the
restraining order complained of and making the preliminary injunction issued by
this Court permanent, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.

^[1]
R.A. No. 5502, Sec. 1, approved June
21, 1969.

^[2]
Quimsing vs. Lachica, G.R. No. L-14683, May 30, 1961; Chief of Philippine Constabulary vs. Sabungan Bagong Silang, Inc., L-22609,
Feb. 28, 1966; Chief, PC vs. Judge CFI Caloocan
City, L-22308, Peralta vs.
Judge Pedro JL Bautista, L-22343-4, March 31, 1966.