December 2, 1991
Ponente: Regalado, J.
FACTS:
·
Robinson Casiño was the owner of the Don
Romulo Rodriguez Coliseum, a cockpit, located on Block 125 at the corner of
Lugod and Jadol Streets, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental. He was previously
granted a license to operate under
Sections 2285 to 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code.
·
Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Gingoog enacted Resolution No. 49, Code Ordinance, Series of 1984, which
classified certain areas of the city, including the cockpit's location at Block
125, as residential zones. The classification led to the cancellation of
Casiño'slicense to operate the cockpit.
·
Article 10, Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49
provided that changes in the zoning ordinance as a result of the review by the
Local Review Committee shall be treated as an amendment provided that any
amendment to the zoning ordinance or provision thereof shall be carried out
through a resolution of three fourths
vote of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
·
On August 13, 1985, Resolution No. 378, Code
Ordinance, Series of 1985, reclassified Block 125 as within the recreational
zone, thus amending Resolution No. 49. Nine
(9) members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod participated, with four (4) members
voting for the amendment, while four (4) voted against, and with one (1)
abstention. The vice-mayor, as
presiding officer, broke the deadlock by voting for the amendment.
·
When Resolution No. 378 was transmitted to
then City Mayor Miguel Paderanga for approval, he returned the same to the
Sangguniang Panlungsod within ten days, without any action, stating that his
approval thereof was not necessary since it did not involve a disposition of
city government funds, as provided by Section 180 of the Local Government Code
and Section 14 of the charter of Gingoog City.
·
By virtue of Resolution No. 378, the
succeeding city mayor, Arturo S. Lugod, issued to Casiño the permit to operate
a cockpit dated April 2, 1986, which was renewed by another permit issued on
January 5, 1987.
·
Gingoog Gallera, Inc. protested the operation
of the cockpit before the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC). The protest was
founded on the fact that no certificate of registration had as yet been issued
by the PGC, although city mayor's permits were issued to Casiño.
·
On April 11, 1986, the PGC, through OIC
Pacifico L. Orog sent a telegram to the Station Commander of Gingoog City to
suspend in the meantime the operation of the cockpit. On April 24, 1986, the
PGC eventually sent a telegram to the city mayor to stop any cockfight in the
Coliseum in view of its failure to register with the PGC.
·
Subsequently, Gingoog Gallera filed a petition
for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Gingoog
City RTC against Casiño on the ground that Resolution No. 378, purportedly
amending zoning Ordinance No. 49, is invalid for failing to comply with the 3/4
votes requirement from the Sanggunian members. It asserted that the
classification of the cockpit's site as still within the residential zone of
Gingoog City was accordingly maintained and unchanged, thereby rendering the mayor's
permits issued to Casiño as null and void for being in violation of Section 6
of the Rules and Regulations of the PGC.
·
RTC: Ruled that the mayor's permits were
null and void. It likewise ordered Casiño and all persons representing him or
acting in his behalf from further operating the cockpit in question.
·
CA: Affirmed RTC.
RULING:
Whether
Resolution No. 49 classifying Block 125 as a residential zone was validly
amended by Resolution No. 378, which reclassified Block 125 as a recreational
zone. – NO.
Whether
the mayor's permits issued to Casiño by virtue of Resolution No. 378 were null
and void. – YES.
Whether
the 3/4 votes requirement imposed by Resolution No. 49 for any amendment
thereto (as opposed to the majority vote requirement under the LGC) is valid. –
YES.
·
Casiño:
Resolution No. 378 is valid because the same was passed by the
Sanggunian by a majority of five (5) affirmative votes as against four (4)
negative votes. He contends that the 3/4 vote requirement under Section 6.44,
Resolution No. 49, aside from its being merely a formal requirement, is an
enactment of the sanggunian which is ultra vires. After all, the the charter of
the City of Gingoog and the LGC require only a majority for the enactment of an
ordinance.
·
SC: Resolution No. 49 cannot be validly
amended by Resolution No. 378 without complying with the categorical
requirement of a three-fourths vote incorporated in the very same ordinance
sought to be amended.
General
law vs. particular enactment
·
The pertinent provisions in the city charter
of Gingoog and the LGC obviously are of general application and embrace a wider
scope or subject matter. In the enactment of ordinances in general, the
application of the aforementioned laws cannot be disputed.
·
However, Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49
regarding amendments thereto is a specific and particular provision for said
ordinance and explicitly provides for a different number of votes. Where there
is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which in
its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the
particular enactment must be operative, and the general statement must be taken
to affect only such cases within its language as are not within the provisions
of the particular enactment.
·
In the instant case, although the general law
on the matter requires a mere majority, the higher requisite vote in Resolution
No. 49 shall govern since municipal authorities are in a better position to
determine the evils sought to be prevented by the inclusion or incorporation of
particular provisions in enacting a particular statute and, therefore, to pass
the appropriate ordinance to attain the main object of the law.
·
This more stringent requirement on the
necessary votes for amendments to Resolution No. 49 apparently forestalled the
apprehended contingency in an apparent attempt to get rid of this legal
stumbling block (the prohibition against a cockpit in a residential zone under
Proclamation 49). Withal, it is legally permissible, as exceptions to the
general provisions on measures covered by city charters and the Local
Government Code, that the vote requirement in certain ordinances may be
specially provided for, as in the case of Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49,
instead of the usual majority vote.
·
All told, Block 125, where the cockpit is
located, remains classified as a residential area. Therefore, the operation of
a cockpit therein is prohibited.
Whether
the registration certificate issued to Casiño by the PGC is valid. – NO.
·
While it is true that the task of granting
licenses to operate cockpits is lodged with City and Municipal Mayor with the
concurrence of their respective Sanggunians, this power is not absolute. It must be noted that certain requirements
must be complied with before a license may issue. First, the rules and
regulations promulgated by the PGC in connection with the operation of cockpits
must be observed. And second, that there must be concurrence of the
Sanggunians.
·
A mayor's permit/ license is a condition
precedent to the issuance of the PGC Registration Certificate. But in the case
at bar, the city mayor's permits issued to Casiño were null and void as they
were granted pursuant to Resolution No. 578 which never took effect because of
non-compliance with the procedure prescribed in Resolution No. 49. And because
of the nullity of the Mayor's permits, the Registration Certificate No. C-86816
issued to Casiño is likewise null and void. The spring cannot rise higher than
its source.
Does the
PGC have the power of control and supervision over the operation of cockpits? –
SUPERVISION ONLY.
·
The PGC has the power not of control but only
of review and supervision. This power was validly exercised by the PGC over
Casiño's cockpit when it sought to stop the latter's operations through the
local officials. It did not whimsically order the suspension and the consequent
stoppage of the cockpit's operations. Rather, PGC only exercised its power of
review over the acts performed by the local authorities in relation to or which
affect the exercise of its functions.
·
Review is a reconsideration or re-examination
for purposes of correction. The power of review is exercised to determine
whether it is necessary to correct the acts of the subordinate and to see to it
that he performs his duties in accordance with law.
·
The PGC did this by bringing to the attention
of the local authorities the non-compliance by Casiño with the rules involved
in this case, which action was reasonable and necessary in the discharge of its
regulatory functions. The PGC may, for that purpose and as it did here,
indicate its disapproval of the acts of the local officials concerned to stress
and perform its role with respect to the regulation of cockpits.