Facts:

The case involves Pacifico Abad and Antonio Abad as plaintiffs and Juan N. Evangelista as the defendant. The events took place in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, with the decision rendered on September 26, 1933. Antonio Abad sought to transfer his cockfighting business from the barrio of San Lorenzo to San Nicolas. On February 9, 1932, he applied for a permit to transfer and reconstruct his cockpit, which was granted by Juan N. Evangelista, the municipal president of Gapan, under the condition that it complied with existing ordinances. Following this, the municipal council enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 6 on March 17, 1932, which was later disapproved by the provincial board for being ambiguous. Subsequently, on April 5, 1932, the council passed Municipal Ordinance No. 8, which regulated the establishment of cockpits, including a provision that prohibited the construction of cockpits within certain barrios and mandated a minimum distance of two kilometers between cockpits. On April 10, ...

Facts:

Background and Application

• Antonio Abad, one of the plaintiffs, intended to transfer his cockfighting business together with its associated cockpit from San Lorenzo to San Nicolas in the municipality of Gapan, Nueva Ecija.
• On February 9, 1932, Antonio Abad sent a written application (Exhibit A) requesting a permit to transfer and reconstruct his camarin of wood with an iron roof (measuring 30 x 15 meters) on land owned by Mr. Agustin Garcia in San Nicolas.
• The application stated that the camarin, already assessed for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 20522, would be used for cockfights in the future.

Communications and Granting of Permit

• On the same day of the application, the defendant-appellant, Juan N. Evangelista, in his official capacity as the municipal president of Gapan, replied (Exhibit C).
• The reply granted Antonio Abad the permit solely for the transfer and reconstruction of the camarin, subject to compliance with existing and future ordinances, without specifically addressing the request to operate cockfights.
• The understanding, corroborated by pre-application discussions, was that the permit covered the physical relocation and reconstruction of the cockpit, not the subsequent conduct of cockfights.

Enactment of Municipal Ordinances

• On March 17, 1932, the municipal council of Gapan enacted ordinance No. 6 regulating the establishment of cockpits.
• On April 4, 1932, the provincial board disapproved ordinance No. 6 due to ambiguity regarding the recipient of the license fee.
• On April 5, 1932, to remedy the defects of the disapproved ordinance, the municipal council enacted ordinance No. 8, series of 1932, imposing conditions such as:
• The requirement of obtaining a permit from the Municipal President.
• Restrictions including prohibiting the construction of cockpits in San Vicente, San Lorenzo, and Poblacion.
• The stipulation that no two cockpits may be less than two kilometers apart, among other provisions.
• Furthermore, ordinance No. 8 provided penalties for violations, including fines and imprisonment, along with a daily penalty rate for continued offenses.

Notice and Suspension of Operations

• On April 7, 1932, Juan N. Evangelista sent a communication to Antonio Abad informing him that his cockpit was being operated in violation of the newly enacted ordinance No. 8.
• Despite the notice and the attached copy of the ordinance, the plaintiff-appellees continued to operate their cockpit.
• On April 10, 1932, as a response to their continued non-compliance, Evangelista ordered the suspension of cockfighting operations through the municipal police.

Subsequent Developments and Indemnification Order

• The trial court rendered a judgment ordering the defendant-appellant to declare the preliminary injunction permanent and to indemnify the plaintiffs at the rate of P100 for each ordinary cockpit day and P500 for every extraordinary day during which the cockpit’s operation was suspended.
• The defendant-appellant contested the decision, raising the errors regarding:
• The interpretation of the permit obtained by Antonio Abad (i.e., transfer versus operation for cockfights).
• The validity of municipal ordinance No. 8 on the ground of being partial.
• His liability as a municipal public officer in enforcing the ordinance.

Issue:

• Whether Antonio Abad obtained a valid permit for operating his cockpit for cockfighting, given that his application was strictly for the transfer and reconstruction of the camarin.
• Whether the enactment of municipal ordinance No. 8, which imposed restrictions such as the two-kilometer distance between cockpits, is partial, unreasonable, or null and void.
• Whether the defendant-appellant, as the municipal president and an official exercising his delegated police power, is liable—civilly or criminally—for damages resulting from the suspension of the cockfighting operations in accordance with the ordinance.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)