Facts:

On July 27, 1998, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, Camarines Sur, passed Resolution No. 049, Series of 1998, which authorized Rolando N. Canet, the petitioner, to establish, operate, and maintain a cockpit in Sitio Cabuya, San Roque, Bula, Camarines Sur. Following this, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999, aimed at regulating the operation of cockpits and related game-fowl activities. However, upon review, Mayor Julieta A. Decena noted that the ordinance lacked specific rules and regulations regarding cockfighting and a separability clause, leading her to return it to the Sangguniang Bayan. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 078, Series of 1999, which effectively shelved Ordinance No. 001 indefinitely.

Relying on the earlier resolution, Canet applied for a mayor's permit to operate the cockpit. However, Mayor Decena denied this application, citing that under the Local Government Code of 1991, the authority to grant licen...

Facts:

Authorization to Operate a Cockpit

On July 27, 1998, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, Camarines Sur, passed Resolution No. 049, Series of 1998, authorizing petitioner Rolando N. Canet to establish, operate, and maintain a cockpit in Sitio Cabaya, San Roque, Bula, Camarines Sur.

Passage of Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999

Subsequently, the Sangguniang Bayan passed Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999, which aimed to regulate the operation of cockpits and related game-fowl activities in the municipality. However, upon review, respondent Mayor Julieta A. Decena noted that the ordinance lacked rules and regulations on cockfighting and a separability clause. As a result, the ordinance was returned to the Sangguniang Bayan.

Withdrawal of Ordinance No. 001

In Resolution No. 078, Series of 1999, the Sangguniang Bayan resolved to withdraw, set aside, and shelve indefinitely Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999.

Application for Mayor’s Permit

Relying on Resolution No. 049, Series of 1998, petitioner filed an application for a mayor’s permit to operate a cockpit. However, respondent Mayor Decena denied the application, citing the absence of a municipal ordinance authorizing the issuance of such a permit, as required under the Local Government Code of 1991.

Filing of Complaint

On July 26, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint for Mandamus and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pili, Camarines Sur, seeking to compel the mayor to issue the permit. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering the mayor to issue the permit.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Respondent Mayor filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the RTC’s writ. On June 3, 2002, the CA annulled and set aside the RTC’s resolution and writ, making its own preliminary injunction permanent.

Petition to the Supreme Court

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Requirement of a Municipal Ordinance: Under Section 447(a)(3)(v) of the Local Government Code of 1991, the authority to authorize and license the establishment, operation, and maintenance of cockpits is vested in the Sangguniang Bayan. Since no valid ordinance was enacted to authorize the operation of cockpits, the mayor cannot issue the permit.

2. Resolution No. 049, Series of 1998, is Insufficient: The resolution authorizing petitioner to operate a cockpit is not equivalent to an ordinance. Resolutions are generally administrative or policy directives, whereas ordinances have the force of law. Thus, the resolution cannot serve as a legal basis for issuing a mayor’s permit.

3. Statutory Construction: The Court emphasized the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes others). Since the Local Government Code explicitly requires an ordinance to authorize the operation of cockpits, the absence of such an ordinance precludes the issuance of a permit.

4. Judicial Restraint: Courts cannot supply legislative omissions or rewrite laws to address perceived gaps. The Court reiterated that it is not within its power to create or expand the scope of a statute beyond its explicit terms.

5. Gambling as a Regulated Activity: Cockfighting, although authorized by law, is a form of gambling. Statutes authorizing gambling activities must be strictly construed, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of limiting rather than expanding such activities.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the respondent Mayor cannot be compelled to issue a mayor’s permit for the operation of a cockpit in the absence of a valid municipal ordinance. The petition was denied for lack of merit.