ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 107660. January 2, 1995 : RAMON C. LOZON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 : HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 : LEOUEL SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 : GEORGE I. RIVERA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 : ROLANDO B. ANGELES vs. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 : LESLIE W. ESPINO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 : EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 : ROLITO T. GO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 : FEM'S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. vs. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 : MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. vs. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 : ALFREDO B. FELIX vs. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 : TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO vs. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 : CITIBANK, N.A. vs. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 : AGRIPINO S. BELEN vs. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 : ETERIA T. TAN vs. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 : ELENA VDA. DE ECO vs. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 : SALLY D. BONGALONTA vs. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 : MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 : POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 : COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 : REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 : JAIME C. DACANAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 : MANUEL M. ALLEJE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 : CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS vs. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 : ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 : SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO vs. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 : JACINTO MAPPALA vs. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 : RAUL H. SESBRENO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 : NILO MERCADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 : ALFREDO S. LIM vs. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 : RAMON ABAD vs. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 : GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 : DJUMANTAN vs. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 : JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107660 January 2, 1995 - RAMON C. LOZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 - HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 - LEOUEL SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 - GEORGE I. RIVERA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 - ROLANDO B. ANGELES v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 - LESLIE W. ESPINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 - EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 - ROLITO T. GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 - FEM’S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. v. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 - MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 - ALFREDO B. FELIX v. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 - TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO v. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 - CITIBANK, N.A. v. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 - AGRIPINO S. BELEN v. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 - ETERIA T. TAN v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 - ELENA VDA. DE ECO v. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 - SALLY D. BONGALONTA v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 - MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 - POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 - JAIME C. DACANAY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 - MANUEL M. ALLEJE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 - CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 - ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 - SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO v. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 - JACINTO MAPPALA v. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 - RAUL H. SESBRENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 - NILO MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 - ALFREDO S. LIM v. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 - RAMON ABAD v. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 - DJUMANTAN v. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 - JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 115044   January 27, 1995 : ALFREDO S. LIM vs. FELIPE G. PACQUING

     

    EN BANC


    [G.R. No. 115044. January 27, 1995.]


    HON. ALFREDO S. LIM, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, and the City of Manila, Petitioners, v. HON. FELIPE G. PACQUING, as Judge, branch 40, Regional Trial Court of Manila and ASSOCIATED CORPORATION, Respondents.

    [G.R. No. 117263 January 27, 1995.]


    TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR. and DOMINADOR R. CEPEDA, Petitioners, v. HON. VETINO REYES and ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.



    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    These two (2) cases which are inter-related actually involve simple issues. if these issues have apparently become complicated, it is not by reason of their nature because of the events and dramatis personae involved.cralaw

    The petition in G.R. No. 115044 was dismissed by the First Division of this Court on 01 September 1994 based on a finding that there was "no abuse of discretion, much less lack of or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of respondent judge [Pacquing]", in issuing the questioned orders. Judge Pacquing had earlier issued in Civil Case No. 88-45660, RTC of Manila, Branch 40, the following orders which were assailed by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim, in said G.R. No. 115044:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    a. order dated 28 March 1994 directing Manila mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue the permit/license to operate the jai-alai in favor of Associated Development Corporation (ADC).cralaw

    b. order dated 11 April 1994 directing mayor Lim to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for non-compliance with the order dated 28 March 1994.cralaw

    c. order dated 20 April 1994 reiterating the previous order directing Mayor Lim to immediately issue the permit/license to Associated Development Corporation (ADC).cralaw

    The order dated 28 march 1994 was in turn issued upon motion by ADC for execution of a final judgment rendered on 9 September 1988 which ordered the Manila Mayor to immediately issue to ADC the permit/license to operate the jai-alai in Manila, under Manila Ordinance No. 7065.cralaw

    On 13 September 1994, petitioner Guingona (as executive secretary) issued a directive to then chairman of the Games and Amusements Board (GAB) Francisco R. Sumulong, Jr. to hold in abeyance the grant of authority, or if any had been issued, to withdraw such grant of authority, to Associated Development Corporation to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila, until the following legal questions are properly resolved:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "1. Whether P.D. 771 which revoked all existing Jai-Alai franchisers issued by local governments as of 20 August 1975 is unconstitutional.cralaw

    2. Assuming that the City of Manila had the power on 7 September 1971 to issue a Jai-Alai franchise to Associated Development Corporation, whether the franchise granted is valied considering that the franchise has no duration, and appears to be granted in perpetuity.cralaw

    3. Whether the City of Manila had the power to issue a Jai-Alai franchise to Associated Development Corporation on 7 September 1971 in view of executive Order No. 392 dated 1 January 1951 which transferred from local governments to the Games and Amusements Board the power to regulate Jai-Alai." 1

    On 15 September 1994, respondent Associated Development Corporation (ADC) filed a petition for prohibition, mandamus, injunction and damages with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila against petitioner Guingona and then GAB chairman Sumulong, docketed as Civil Case No. 94-71656, seeking to prevent GAB from withdrawing the provisional authority that had earlier been granted to ADC. On the same day, the RTC of Manila, Branch 4, through presiding Judge Vetino Reyes, issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the GAB from withdrawing ADC's provisional authority. This temporary restraining order was converted into a writ of preliminary injunction upon ADC's posting of a bond in the amount of P2,000,000.00. 2

    Subsequently, also in G.R. No. 115044, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Games and Amusements Board, filed a "Motion for Intervention; for Leave to File a Motion for reconsideration in Intervention; and to Refer the case to the Court En Banc" and later a "Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention and to Admit Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention".cralaw

    In an En Banc Resolution dated 20 September 1994, this Court referred G.R. No. 115044 to the Court En Banc and required the respondents therein to comment on the aforementioned motions.cralaw

    Meanwhile, Judge Reyes on 19 October 1994 issued another order, this time, granting ADC a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against Guingona and GAB to compel them to issue in favor of ADC the authority to operate jai-alai.cralaw

    Guingona, as executive secretary, and Dominador Cepeda, Jr. as the new GAB chairman, then filed the petition in G.R. No. 117263 assailing the abovementioned orders of respondent Judge Vetino Reyes.cralaw

    On 25 October 1994, in G.R. No. 117263, this Court granted petitioner's motion for leave to file supplemental petition and to admit attached supplemental petition with urgent prayer for restraining order. The Court further required respondents to file their comment on the petition and supplemental petition with urgent prayer for restraining order. The Court likewise set the case and all incidents thereof for hearing on 10 November 1994.cralaw

    At the hearing on 10 November 1994, the issues to be resolved were formulated by the Court as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    1. whether or not intervention by the Republic of the Philippines at this stage of the proceedings is proper;

    2. assuming such intervention is proper, whether or not the Associated Development Corporation has a valid and subsisting franchise to maintain and operate the jai-alai;

    3. whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent Judge Reyes in issuing the aforementioned temporary restraining order (later writ of preliminary injunction); and

    4. whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent Judge Reyes in issuing the aforementioned writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.cralaw

    On the issue of the propriety of the intervention by the Republic of the Philippines, a question was raised during the hearing on 10 November 1994 as to whether intervention in G.R. No. 115044 was the proper remedy for the national government to take in questioning the existence of a valid ADC franchise to operate the jai-alai or whether a separate action for quo warranto under Section 2, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court was the proper remedy.cralaw

    We need not belabor this issue since counsel for respondent ADC agreed to the suggestion that this Court once and for all settle all substantive issues raised by the parties in these cases. Moreover, this Court can consider the petition filed in G.R. No. 117263 as one for quo warranto which is within the original jurisdiction of the Court under section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution. 3

    On the propriety of intervention by the Republic, however, it will be recalled that this Court in Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals (93 SCRA 238) allowed intervention even beyond the period prescribed in Section 2 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court. The Court ruled in said case that a denial of the motions for intervention would "lead the Court to commit an act of injustice to the movants, to their successor-in-interest and to all purchasers for value and in good faith and thereby open the door to fraud, falsehood and misrepresentation, should intervenors' claim be proven to be true."

    In the present case, the resulting injustice and injury, should the national government's allegations be proven correct, are manifest, since the latter has squarely questioned the very existence of a valid franchise to maintain and operate the jai-alai (which is a gambling operation) in favor of ADC. As will be more extensively discussed later, the national government contends that Manila Ordinance No. 7065 which purported to grant to ADC a franchise to conduct jai-alai operations is void and ultra vires since Republic Act No. 954, approved on 20 June 1953, or very much earlier than said Ordinance No. 7065, the latter approved 7 September 1971, in Section 4 thereof, requires a legislative franchise, not a municipal franchise, for the operation of jai-alai. Additionally, the national government argues that even assuming, arguendo, that the abovementioned ordinance is valid, ADC's franchise was nonetheless effectively revoked by Presidential Decree No. 771, issued on 20 August 1975, Sec. 3 of which expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of gambling facilities (including the jai-alai) issued by local governments.cralaw

    On the other hand, ADC's position is that Ordinance No. 7065 was validly enacted by the City of Manila pursuant to its delegated powers under it charter, Republic Act No. 409. ADC also squarely assails the constitutionality of PD No. 771 as violative of the equal protection and non-impairment clauses of the Constitution. In this connection, counsel for ADC contends that this Court should really rule on the validity of PD No. 771 to be able to determine whether ADC continues to possess a valid franchise.cralaw

    It will undoubtedly be a grave injustice to both parties in this case if this Court were to shirk from ruling on the issue of constitutionality of PD No. 771. Such issue has, in our view, become the very lis mota in resolving the present controversy, in view of ADC's insistence that it was granted a valid and legal franchise by Ordinance No. 7065 to operate the jai-alai.cralaw

    The time-honored doctrine is that all laws (PD No. 771 included) are presumed valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by this Court. Not only this; Article XVIII Section 3 of the Constitution states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked."

    There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed, altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the executive still exercised legislative powers).cralaw

    Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADC's franchise by reason of the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the Court's First Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution. 4

    And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADC's possession of a valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents (Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90)

    Consequently, in the light of the foregoing expostulation, we conclude that the republic (in contra distinction to the City of Manila) may be allowed to intervene in G.R. No. 115044. The Republic is intervening in G.R. No. 115044 in the exercise, not of its business or proprietary functions, but in the exercise of its governmental functions to protect public morals and promote the general welfare.cralaw

    II

    Anent the question of whether ADC has a valid franchise to operate the Jai-Alai de Manila, a statement of the pertinent laws is in order.cralaw

    1. The Charter of the City of Manila was enacted by Congress on 18 June 1949. Section 18 thereof provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "Section 18. Legislative Powers. - The Municipal Board shall have the following legislative powers:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    xxx xxx xxx


    (jj) To tax, license, permit and regulate wagers or betting by the public on boxing, sipa, bowling, billiards, pools, horse and dog races, cockpits, jai-alai, roller or ice-skating on any sporting or athletic contests, as well as grant exclusive rights to establishments for this purpose, notwithstanding any existing law to the contrary."

    2. On 1 January 1951, Executive Order No. 392 was issued transferring the authority to regulate jai-alais from local government to the Games and Amusements Board (GAB).cralaw

    3. On 20 June 1953, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 954, entitled "An Act to Prohibit With Horse Races and Basque Pelota Games (Jai-Alai), And To Prescribe Penalties For Its Violation". The provisions of Republic Act No. 954 relating to jai-alai are as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "Sec. 4. No person, or group of persons other than the operator or maintainer of a fronton with legislative franchise to conduct basque pelota games (Jai-alai), shall offer, to take or arrange bets on any basque pelota game or event, or maintain or use a totalizator or other device, method or system to bet or gamble on any basque pelota game or event." (underscoring supplied).cralaw

    "Sec. 5. No person, operator or maintainer of a fronton with legislative franchise to conduct basque pelota games shall offer, take, or arrange bets on any basque pelota game or event, or maintain or use a totalizator or other device, method or system to bet or gamble on any basque pelota game or event outside the place, enclosure, or fronton where the basque pelota game is held." (Emphasis supplied).cralaw

    4. On 07 September 1971, however, the Municipal Board of Manila nonetheless passed Ordinance No. 7065 entitled "An Ordinance Authorizing the Mayor To Allow And Permit The Associated Development Corporation To Establish, Maintain And Operate A Jai-Alai In The City Of Manila, Under Certain Terms And Conditions And For Other Purposes."

    5. On 20 August 1975, Presidential Decree No. 771 was issued by then President Marcos. The decree, entitled "Revoking All Powers and Authority of Local Government(s) To Grant Franchise, License or Permit And Regulate Wagers Or Betting By The Public On Horse And Dog Races, Jai-Alai Or Basque Pelota, And Other Forms Of Gambling", in Section 3 thereof, expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits issued by local governments.cralaw

    6. On 16 October 1975, Presidential Decree No. 810, entitled "An Act granting The Philippine Jai-Alai And Amusement Corporation A Franchise To Operate, Construct And Maintain A Fronton For Basque Pelota And Similar Games of Skill In THE Greater Manila Area," was promulgated.cralaw

    7. On 08 May 1987, then President Aquino, by virtue of Article XVIII, Section 6, of the Constitution, which allowed the incumbent legislative powers until the first Congress was convened, issued Executive Order No. 169 expressly repealing PD 810 and revoking and cancelling the franchise granted to the Philippine Jai-Alai and Amusement Corporation.cralaw

    Petitioners in G.R. No. 117263 argue that Republic Act No. 954 effectively removed the power of the Municipal Board of Manila to grant franchises for gambling operations. It is argued that the term "legislative franchise" in Rep. Act No. 954 is used to refer to franchises issued by Congress.cralaw

    On the other hand, ADC contends that Republic Act N. 409 (Manila Chapter) gives legislative powers to the Municipal Board to grant franchises, and since Republic Act No. 954 does not specifically qualify the word "legislative" as referring exclusively to Congress, then Rep. Act No. 954 did not remove the power of the Municipal Board under Section 18(jj) of Republic Act No. 409 and consequently it was within the power of the City of Manila to allow ADC to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila.cralaw

    On this point, the government counter-argues that the term "legislative powers" is used in Rep. Act No. 409 merely to distinguish the powers under Section 18 of the law from the other powers of the Municipal Board, but that the term "legislative franchise" in Rep. Act No. 954 refers to a franchise granted solely by Congress.cralaw

    Further, the government argues that Executive Order No. 392 dated 01 January 1951 transferred even the power to regulate Jai-Alai from the local governments to the Games and Amusements Board (GAB), a national government agency.cralaw

    It is worthy of note that neither of the authorities relied upon by ADC to support its alleged possession of a valid franchise, namely the Charter of the City of Manila (Rep. Act No. 409) and Manila Ordinance No. 7065 uses the word "franchise". Rep. Act No. 409 empowers the Municipal Board of Manila to "tax, license, permit and regulate wagers or betting" and to "grant exclusive rights to establishments", while Ordinance No. 7065 authorized the Manila City Mayor to "allow and permit" ADC to operate jai-alai facilities in the City of Manila.cralaw

    It is clear from the foregoing that Congress did not delegate to the City of Manila the power "to franchise" wagers or betting, including the jai-alai, but retained for itself such power "to franchise". What Congress delegated to the City of Manila in Rep. Act No. 409, with respect to wagers or betting, was the power to "license, permit, or regulate" which therefore means that a license or permit issued by the City of Manila to operate a wager or betting activity, such as the jai-alai where bets are accepted, would not amount to something meaningful UNLESS the holder of the permit or license was also FRANCHISED by the national government to so operate. Moreover, even this power to license, permit, or regulate wagers or betting on jai-alai was removed from local governments, including the City of Manila, and transferred to the GAB on 1 January 1951 by Executive Order No. 392. The net result is that the authority to grant franchises for the operation of jai-alai frontons is in Congress, while the regulatory function is vested in the GAB.cralaw

    In relation, therefore, to the facts of this case, since ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate the jai-alai, it may not so operate even if its has a license or permit from the City Mayor to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila.cralaw

    It cannot be overlooked, in this connection, that the Revised Penal Code punishes gambling and betting under Articles 195 to 199 thereof. Gambling is thus generally prohibited by law, unless another law is enacted by Congress expressly exempting or excluding certain forms of gambling from the reach of criminal law. Among these form the reach of criminal law. Among these forms of gambling allowed by special law are the horse races authorized by Republic Acts Nos. 309 and 983 and gambling casinos authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1869.cralaw

    While jai-alai as a sport is not illegal per se, the accepting of bets or wagers on the results of jai-alai games is undoubtedly gambling and, therefore, a criminal offense punishable under Articles 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code, unless it is shown that a later or special law had been passed allowing it. ADC has not shown any such special law.cralaw

    Republic Act No. 409 (the Revised Charter of the City of Manila) which was enacted by Congress on 18 June 1949 gave the Municipal Board certain delegated legislative powers under Section 18. A perusal of the powers enumerated under Section 18 shows that these powers are basically regulatory in nature. 5 The regulatory nature of these powers finds support not only in the plain words of the enumerations under Section 28 but also in this Court's ruling in People v. Vera (65 Phil. 56).cralaw

    In Vera, this Court declared that a law which gives the Provincial Board the discretion to determine whether or not a law of general application (such as, the Probation law-Act No. 4221) would or would not be operative within the province, is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power.cralaw

    From the ruling in Vera, it would be logical to conclude that, if ADC's arguments were to prevail, this Court would likewise declare Section 18(jj) of the Revised Charter of Manila unconstitutional for the power it would delegate to the Municipal Board of Manila would give the latter the absolute and unlimited discretion to render the penal code provisions on gambling inapplicable or inoperative to persons or entities issued permits to operate gambling establishments in the City of Manila.cralaw

    We need not go to this extent, however, since the rule is that laws must be presumed valid, constitutional and in harmony with other laws. Thus, the relevant provisions of Rep. Acts Nos. 409 and 954 and Ordinance No. 7065 should be taken together and it should then be clear that the legislative powers of the Municipal Board should be understood to be regulatory in nature and that Republic Act No. 954 should be understood to refer to congressional franchises, as a necessity for the operation of jai-alai.cralaw

    We need not, however, again belabor this issue further since the task at hand which will ultimately, and with finality, decide the issues in this case is to determine whether PD No. 771 validly revoked ADC's franchise to operate the jai-alai, assuming (without conceding) that it indeed possessed such franchise under Ordinance No. 7065.cralaw

    ADC argues that PD No. 771 is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection and non-impairment provisions of the Constitution. On the other hand, the government contends that PD No. 771 is a valid exercise of the inherent police power of the State.cralaw

    The police power has been described as the least limitable of the inherent powers of the State. It is based on the ancient doctrine - salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law.) In the early case of Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil. 660), this Court through Mr. Justice George A. Malcolm stated thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "The police power of the State . . . is a power co-extensive with self-protection, and is not inaptly termed the "law of overruling necessity." It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. Carried onward by the current of legislation, the judiciary rarely attempts to dam the onrushing power of legislative discretion, provided the purposes of the law do not go beyond the great principles that mean security for the public welfare or do not arbitrarily interfere with the right of the individual."

    In the matter of PD No. 771, the purpose of the law is clearly stated in the "whereas clause" as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "WHEREAS, it has been reported that in spite of the current drive of our law enforcement agencies against vices and illegal gambling, these social ills are still prevalent in many areas of the country;

    "WHEREAS, there is need to consolidate all the efforts of the government to eradicate and minimize vices and other forms of social ills in pursuance of the social and economic development program under the new society;

    "WHEREAS, in order to effectively control and regulate wagers or betting by the public on horse and dog races, jai-alai and other forms of gambling there is a necessity to transfer the issuance of permit and/or franchise from local government to the National Government."

    It cannot be argued that the control and regulation of gambling do not promote public morals and welfare. Gambling is essentially antagonistic and self-reliance. It breeds indolence and erodes the value of good, honest and hard work. It is, as very aptly stated by PD No. 771, a vice and a social ill which government must minimize (if not eradicate) in pursuit of social and economic development.cralaw

    In Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation (20 July 1994, G.R. No. 111097), this Court stated thru Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "In the exercise of its own discretion, the legislative power may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. Thus, it has prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries, cockfighting and horse-racing. In making such choices, Congress has consulted its own wisdom, which this Court has no authority to review, much less reverse. Well has it been said that courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories. That is the prerogative of the political departments. It is settled that questions regarding wisdom, morality and practicability of statutes are not addressed to the judiciary but may be resolved only by the executive and legislative departments, to which the function belongs in our scheme of government." (Emphasis supplied)

    Talks regarding the supposed vanishing line between right and privilege in American constitutional law has no relevance in the context of these cases since the reference there is to economic regulations. On the other hand, jai-alai is not a mere economic activity which the law seeks to regulate. It is essentially gambling and whether it should be permitted and, if so, under what conditions are questions primarily for the lawmaking authority to determine, talking into account national and local interests. Here, it is the police power of the State that is paramount.cralaw

    ADC questions the motive for the issuance of PD Nos. 771. Clearly, however, this Court cannot look into allegations that PD No. 771 was enacted to benefit a select group which was later given authority to operate the jai-alai under PD No. 810. The examination of legislative motivation is generally prohibited. (Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 29 L. Ed. 2d 438 [1971] per Black, J.) There is, the first place, absolute lack of evidence to support ADC's allegation of improper motivation in the issuance of PD No. 771. In the second place, as already averred, this Court cannot go behind the expressed and proclaimed purposes of PD No. 771, which are reasonable and even laudable.cralaw

    It should also be remembered that PD No. 771 provides that the national government can subsequently grant franchises "upon proper application and verification of the qualifications of the applicant." ADC has not alleged that it filed an application for a franchise with the national government subsequent to the enactment of PD No. 771; thus, the allegations abovementioned (of preference to a select group) are based on conjectures, speculations and imagined biases which do not warrant the consideration of this Court.cralaw

    On the other hand, it is noteworthy that while then president Aquino issued Executive Order No. 169 revoking PD No. 810 (which granted a franchise to a Marcos-crony to operate the jai-alai), she did not scrap or repeal PD No. 771 which had revoked all franchises to operate jai-alais issued by local governments, thereby re-affirming the government policy that franchises to operate jai-alais are for the national government (not local governments) to consider and approve.cralaw

    On the alleged violation of the non-impairment and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, it should be remembered that a franchise is not in the strict sense a simple contract but rather it is more importantly, a mere privilege specially in matters which are within the government's power to regulate and even prohibit through the exercise of the police power. Thus, a gambling franchise is always subject to the exercise of police power for the public welfare.cralaw

    In RCPI v. NTC (150 SCRA 450), we held that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "A franchise started out as a 'royal privilege or (a) branch of the King's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject.' This definition was given by Finch, adopted by Blackstone, and accepted by every authority since . . . Today, a franchise being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the state and owing its existence to a grant, is subject to regulation by the state itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies."

    There is a stronger reason for holding ADC's permit to be a mere privilege because jai-alai, when played for bets, is pure and simple gambling. To analogize a gambling franchise for the operation of a public utility, such as public transportation company, is to trivialize the great historic origin of this branch of royal privilege.cralaw

    As earlier noted, ADC has not alleged ever applying for a franchise under the provisions of PD No. 771. And yet, the purpose of PD No. 771 is quite clear from its provisions, i.e., to give to the national government the exclusive power to grant gambling franchises. Thus, all franchises then existing were revoked but were made subject to reissuance by the national government upon compliance by the applicant with government-set qualifications and requirements.cralaw

    There was no violation by PD No. 771 of the equal protection clause since the decree revoked all franchises issued by local governments without qualification or exception. ADC cannot allege violation of the equal protection clause simply because it was the only one affected by the decree, for as correctly pointed out by the government, ADC was not singled out when all jai-alai franchises were revoked. Besides, it is too late in the day for ADC to seek redress for alleged violation of its constitutional rights for it could have raised these issues as early as 1975, almost twenty 920) years ago.cralaw

    Finally, we do not agree that Section 3 of PD No. 771 and the requirement of a legislative franchise in Republic Act No. 954 are "riders" to the two 92) laws and are violative of the rule that laws should embrace one subject which shall be expressed in the title, as argued by ADC. In Cordero v. Cabatuando (6 SCRA 418), this Court ruled that the requirement under the constitution that all laws should embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title is sufficiently met if the title is comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which the statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of the objective.cralaw

    III

    On the issue of whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent Judge Reyes in issuing the temporary restraining order (later converted to a writ of preliminary injunction) and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, we hold and rule there was.cralaw

    Section 3, Rule 58 of the rules of Court provides for the grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. While ADC could allege these grounds, respondent judge should have taken judicial notice of Republic Act No. 954 and PD 771, under Section 1 rule 129 of the Rules of court. These laws negate the existence of any legal right on the part of ADC to the reliefs it sought so as to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. since PD No. 771 and Republic Act No. 954 are presumed valid and constitutional until ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court after due hearing, ADC was not entitled to the writs issued and consequently there was grave abuse of discretion in issuing them.cralaw

    WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, judgment is hereby rendered:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    1. allowing the Republic of the Philippines to intervene in G.R. No. 115044.cralaw

    2. declaring Presidential Decree No. 771 valid and constitutional.cralaw

    3. declaring that respondent Associated Development corporation (ADC) does not possess the required congressional franchise to operate and conduct the jai-alai under Republic Act No. 954 and Presidential Decree No. 771.cralaw

    4. setting aside the writs of preliminary injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction issued by respondent Judge Vetino Reyes in civil Case No. 94-71656.cralaw

    SO ORDERED.cralaw

    Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo and Mendoza, JJ., concur.cralaw

    Narvasa, C.J. and Francisco, J., took no part.cralaw

    Separate Opinions


    KAPUNAN, J., concurring:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Government encroachments on private property however, valid, are always subject to limitations imposed by the due process and impairment of contracts clauses of the Constitution. The government challenge in the case at bench, ostensibly involving a franchise granted pursuant to legitimate local legislative authority, on the surface appears to be an easy one, clothed, as it were in the State's inherent and almost illimitable prerogative to promote the general welfare and the common good. As the challenge involves a facile conflict between good and evil, between a universally recognized vice and the State's virtuous posture, the instant case lends itself to easy adjudication.cralaw

    Not necessarily. Economic realities have blurred distinctions. The State itself, though in virtuous garb, has at various times allowed a relaxation of existing rules proscribing gambling and devised a system of regulations, local and national, through which gambling and otherwise illicit gaming operations may be maintained by those licensed to do so. As the system has never been perfect, conflict, such as that which existed in the case at bench, occasionally arises.cralaw

    The constitutionality of P.D. 771 was not in issue in Lim vs. Pacquing, promulgated by the court's first Division last September, 1994, where this court sustained an order by Judge Pacquing issued in Civil Case No. 88-45660 compelling Manila Mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue a permit to operate a jail fronton in favor of the Associated Development Corporation (ADC) pursuant to Manila City Ordinance No. 7065.cralaw

    After the City of Manila subsequently granted ADC a permit to operate the jai-alai fronton, Chairman Francisco Sumulong, Jr. of the Games and Amusements Board issued on September 9, 1994 a provisional authority to open the fronton subject to certain conditions imposed therein. In relation to this, the GAB likewise issued to the ADC, on 12 September 1994, License No. 94-008 upon payment of the corresponding fees.cralaw

    On September 13, 1994, Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona directed GAB Chairman Sumulong "to hold in abeyance the grant of authority or if any has been issued, to withdraw such grant of authority" 1 to the ADC. Consequently, on September 14, 1994, the GAB Chairman revoked the provisional authority issued by his office, until the legal issues raised in the September 13 directive of the Executive Secretary are resolved in the proper court. Said directive identified the legal issues as centering on 1) the constitutionality of P.D. 771; 2) the validity of the apparent grant in perpetuity of a municipal franchise to maintain jai-alai operations; and, 3) the power of the city of Manila to issue a jai-alai franchise in view of Executive Order 392 which transferred from local governments to the GAB the power to regulate jai-alai.cralaw

    Reacting to the cancellation of its provisional authority to maintain jai-alai operations, ADC, on September 15, 1994 filed a petition for prohibition, mandamus, injunction and damages with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction in the Manila Regional Trial Court of against Executive Secretary Guingona and Chairman Sumulong. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4, through Judge Vetino Reyes on the same day issued an order enjoining the Executive Secretary and the GAB Chairman from implementing their directive and memorandum, respectively.cralaw

    On September 16, 1994 GAB, representing the Republic of the Philippines, filed a motion for intervention, for leave to file a motion for reconsideration-in-intervention and for reference of the case to the Court en banc in G.R. No. 115044. Acting on this motion, the First Division referred the case to the Court en banc, which, in a resolution dated 20 September 1994, accepted the same and required the respondents therein to comment.cralaw

    On October 11, 1994 the Executive Secretary and the new GAB Chairman Domingo Cepeda, Jr. filed with this Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing Judge Vetino Reyes' earlier order.cralaw

    On October 19, 1994, Judge Reyes issued another order granting the ADB's motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the Executive Secretary and the GAB Chairman and to compel them to issue the necessary authority, licenses and working permits to the ADC, its personnel and players.cralaw

    The government sought leave to file a supplemental petition (and to admit attached supplemental petition) with urgent prayer for a restraining order assailing the October 19, 1994 Order of Judge Reyes. We granted leave to file said supplemental petition and to admit supplemental petition and required respondents therein to file their comment on October 25, 1994.cralaw

    The ADC maintains it original position that Ordinance No. 7065, enacted pursuant to the Charter of the City of Manila under Republic Act No. 409 granted a valid and subsisting municipal franchise for the operation of the Basque pelota game jai alai. In response to the government's vehement objections against ADC's operation of its gambling operations 2 the ADC for the first time challenged the constitutional validity of P.D. No. 771 insofar as it revoked the authority granted to it by Ordinance No. 7065 as violative of the non-impairment of contracts and equal protection clauses of the constitution. Ordinance 7065 reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Section 1. The Mayor is authorized, as he is hereby authorized to allow and permit the Associated Development Corporation to establish, maintain and operate a jai-alai in the City of Manila under the following terms and conditions and such other terms and conditions as he (the Mayor) may prescribe for good reasons of general interest:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    a. That the construction, establishment, and maintenance of the jai-alai shall be at a place permissible under existing zoning ordinances of Manila;

    b. That the games to be played daily shall commence not earlier than 5:00 o'clock (sic) in the afternoon;

    c. That the City of Manila will receive a share of 2

    G.R. No. 115044   January 27, 1995 : ALFREDO S. LIM vs. FELIPE G. PACQUING


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED