Title
Canet vs. Decena
Case
G.R. No. 155344
Decision Date
Jan 20, 2004
A petitioner sought to compel a mayor to issue a cockpit permit, but the Supreme Court ruled that a valid municipal ordinance is required under the Local Government Code, denying the petition.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 155344)

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:

The core issue in this case is whether respondent Mayor Julieta A. Decena, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor, can be compelled to issue a business permit to petitioner absent a municipal ordinance authorizing the operation of cockpits.


Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

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.


Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.