G.R. No. L-24810. June 19, 1979
HON. JOSE M. VILLARAMA, GOVERNOR OF BULACAN, LT. COL. CESAR B. LUCERO, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY PROVINCIAL COMMANDER OF BULACAN, M.M. REYES, PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BULACAN, C.C.…
SANTOS, J.:
This petition for certiorari, with prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction, filed July 30, 1965 seeks – (1) to set aside the
decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 12, 1965 in CA-G.R. No. 35405-R
which reinstated Civil Case No. 3164-M previously dismissed by the Court of
First Instance of Bulacan, and (2) to dissolve its writ of mandatory
injunction ordering the herein petitioners to allow the operation of nightclubs
and restaurants owned by the private respondents.
Initially, private respondents, Vicente de la Cruz and Mariano
Mendoza, operators respectively of Nepa Night and Princess Night Clubs in
Bocaue, Bulacan, filed before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan Civil Case
No. 3164-M for Mandamus and Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and
Preventive Injunction to declare null and void a Memorandum Circular dated
December 22, 1964 issued by Governor Jose M. Villarama directing that no
permits be issued for the operation of “nightclubs, saloons, cabarets or
the like” beginning January 1, 1965; to require the Municipal Treasurer of
Bocaue to accept payment of the license fees; and to order the Provincial
Governor and the Provincial Constabulary Commander to desist from preventing
petitioners from operating their respective establishments.[1]
On February 22, 1965, Judge Emmanuel M. Muñoz dismissed Civil
Case No. 3164-M on the ground that the municipal ordinance vests upon the Municipal
Treasurer the right and the duty to exercise his judgment on whether or not a
license is to be issued to any applicant and that this function not being
ministerial may not be controlled by mandamus, citing Pedro vs. Provincial Board
of Rizal, 56 Phil. 123.[2]
Forthwith, de la Cruz and Mendoza filed a Petition for Certiorari
with a prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction dated February
25, 1965 with the Court of Appeals, (CA-G.R. No. 35405-R), to set aside the
order of dismissal, to order the respondent Judge to try the case on the merits
and, pending final determination of the case on the merits, to issue a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction against the public officials to allow them to
open and operate their respective establishments.[3]
On June 16, 1965,
the Court of Appeals issued its Decision of even date.[4]
It held that the Municipal Treasurer did not exercise his discretion under
Section 8 of Municipal Ordinance No. 2, in refusing to issue a license but
merely complied with the instructions of the Provincial Treasurer and the
Memorandum Circular of the Provincial Governor and, that the said Memorandum
Circular was null and void as it abrogates Municipal Ordinance No. 2, Series of
1958, and that it constitutes an exercise of control over local officials and
not merely supervision over them as allowed under Section 2082 of the Revised
Administrative Code. The Court of
Appeals, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal as constituting grave
abuse of discretion, ordered the public officials
to answer and directed that due hearing of the case shall be held and the case
decided on the merits.[5]
The petitioners and the respondents both filed separate motions
for reconsideration[6]
of the above-mentioned decision of June
16, 1965. And on July 12,
1965, the Court of Appeals denied the public officials’ motion for
reconsideration and issued a writ of
mandatory injunction ordering the respondents Provincial Governor, Provincial
Constabulary Commander and Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan and the Municipal
Treasurer of Bocaue, Bulacan to restore the nightclubs of de la Cruz and
Mendoza to their status as of December 29, 1964 upon payment of the
corresponding license fees.[7]
Hence, this present recourse.
We gave due course to this petition and on August 2, 1965, required the respondents to file
their answer to the petition.[8]
On August 4, 1965, We issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the
respondents from enforcing or implementing the writ of mandatory injunction
issued in CA-G.R. No. 35405-R.[9]
Respondents filed on September
7, 1965 a motion for the dissolution of the writ of preliminary
injunction issued ex-parte on August 4,
1965.[10]
In our resolution dated September 13,
1965, we required the petitioners to answer the motion to dissolve
the writ of preliminary injunction issued by Us in
favor of respondents.
On September 24, 1965, respondents Vicente de la Cruz and Mariano
Mendoza filed their supplemental motion to lift the writ of preliminary injunction
and moved for the dismissal of this
petition alleging
that since the filing of the petition for certiorari, other nightclub operators in the province of
Bulacan have been issued licenses to operate their nights spots and considering the inconsistency of the stand taken by the petitioners, the
present petition should be dismissed as petitioners themselves have rendered
the issues raised moot and academic.
On the scheduled date of hearing of October 6, 1965, the parties
were heard in oral argument and on the same date We resolved to dissolve
the writ of preliminary injunction issued by Us after considering the
arguments presented and the pleadings filed by the parties and the case was
considered submitted for decision.[11]
It appears that the Provincial Governor of Bulacan had virtually
abrogated his Memorandum Circular of December 22, 1964, prohibiting the
issuance of licenses and permits to operators of nightclubs of said province
beginning January, 1965 by the subsequent issuance of licenses and permits to
other nightclub operators in the province of Bulacan with the full knowledge of
the provincial officials concerned.[12]
The records also show that petitioners manifested on October 15, 1965[13]
that since this Court dissolved its preliminary injunction on Oct. 6, 1965 they
no longer consider as necessary the filing of their opposition to respondents’
Motion to Dissolve Injunction and Supplemental Motion to Lift Preliminary
Injunction, thereby implying that petitioners no longer have objection to
respondents’ operation of the night clubs.
Finally, it appears that no other pleadings have been filed
nor further inquiries made by either of the parties as to the status of
this case. This petition may, therefore,
be dismissed as moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, let this petition be, as it is hereby
dismissed, as moot and academic. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Antonio, (Acting Chairman), Aquino, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., on leave of
absence.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 52-58, Annex “H”.
[2]
Id., pp. 69-71, Annex “J”.
[3]
Id., pp. 72-89, Annex “K”.
[4]
Justice Esguerra as ponente with JJ. Conrado Sanchez and Juan
Enriquez, concurring.
[5]
Id., pp. 99-109, Annex “M”.
[6]
Id., pp. 110-116, Annex
“N”.
[7]
Id., pp. 117-122, Annex
“O”.
[8]
Id., p. 127.
[9]
Id., pp. 125-126.
[10]
Id., p. 128.
[11]
Id., p. 218, Dissolution of
Writ.
[12]
Id., p. 211.
Permit to Operate nightclubs dated July 22, 1965.
[13]
Id., p. 225.