Case Digest (G.R. No. 175042)
Facts:
Danilo A. Du v. Venancio R. Jayoma, et al., G.R. No. 175042, April 23, 2012, First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Danilo A. Du (petitioner) sought review of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 11, 2006 and Resolution dated October 4, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00492.
In 1988 the Sangguniang Bayan of Mabini, Bohol enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 1, s. 1988, requiring public bidding every four years for the operation of the municipal cockpit. For the January 1, 1989–December 31, 1992 term the winning bidder, Engr. Edgardo Carabuena, failed to comply with legal requirements; the Sangguniang Bayan therefore adopted Resolution No. 127, s. 1988 authorizing petitioner to continue cockpit operations only until the winning bidder complied or until December 31, 1992.
On July 9, 1997 the Sangguniang Bayan passed Municipal Resolution No. 065, s. 1997, suspending petitioner's cockpit operation, and on July 11, 1997 Mayor Venancio R. Jayoma ordered petitioner to desist from holding cockfighting activities effective immediately. Petitioner claimed to hold a business permit valid until December 31, 1997 and alleged the suspension was unlawful and deprived him of due process.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition (Special Civil Action No. 4) before Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction; the RTC issued a TRO on October 22, 1997 and later admitted an amended petition adding a claim for damages. On October 5, 2004 the RTC rendered judgment for petitioner, awarding moral, unearned income, exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed in a Decision dated July 11, 2006, holding that petitioner had only a temporary privilege and no vested right to operate the cockpit and there...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner have a legal or vested right to operate the cockpit that would furnish a cause of action and entitle him to damages?
- Were respondents' suspension of petitioner's cockpit operation and the mayoral order invalid or violative of due process such that petitioner co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)