Case Digest (G.R. No. 34163)
Facts:
Gregorio Pedro v. The Provincial Board of Rizal et al., G.R. No. 34163, September 18, 1931, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villa-Real, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from the long-running controversy over a cockpit located in the barrio of Galas, municipality of Caloocan, Rizal. In May 1926 an association called La Sociedad Bighani was organized to construct and operate a cockpit; its president, Eugenio Tansioco, applied for a municipal permit on May 22, 1926. The municipal authorities thereafter annulled the permit on grounds that the site violated an existing local distance restriction (Ordinance No. 15, series of 1926). The association sued the municipal president and council in Civil Case No. 30537 in the Court of First Instance of Manila; that court absolved the municipal defendants (Aug. 26, 1927), and this Court affirmed on appeal (Company "Bighani" v. Pablo, 53 Phil. 886).
After municipal Ordinance No. 34 (Sept. 18, 1927) set distance restrictions, a new municipal council took office following the June 5, 1928 election. On December 21, 1928, petitioner Gregorio Pedro purchased all rights of the Sociedad Bighani and applied for a four‑year permit to operate the cockpit. On December 26, 1928 the municipal council (the sitting council) approved Ordinance No. 35, amending prior distance rules so the Galas cockpit would qualify, and issued the permit; that same day some councillors accused the municipal president and others of bribery, and the provincial governor referred the matter to the provincial board.
The provincial board ordered temporary suspension of the accused councillors (Resolution No. 1110, Dec. 27, 1928) and the governor suspended them (Dec. 28, 1928). On Dec. 28, Pedro paid license fees and received a permit and receipt. On Dec. 29, 1928 an ad interim municipal council (with temporary councillors appointed after the suspensions) passed Ordinance No. 36, series 1928, suspending the effects of Ordinance No. 35 while a special committee would investigate the expediency of permitting the Galas cockpit; the provincial board on the same day adopted Resolution No. 1135 suspending Ordinance No. 35 pending final determination. The Director of the Santol Tuberculosis Sanatorium protested (Jan. 16, 1929) that a cockpit near the sanatorium would impede patients’ recovery. The Executive Bureau later found the suspended municipal officers guilty of maladministration and recommended disciplinary measures; on Feb. 1, 1929 the provincial board disapproved Resolution No. 202 (which had approved Ordinance No. 35) by Resolution No. 154. Pedro obtained a sanitary certificate (Feb. 2) and posted a bond (Feb. 7), but the municipal president refused to allow opening of the cockpit (Feb. 15) because Ordinance No. 35 had been disapproved.
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved by the temporary municipal councillors, valid?
- Did petitioner Gregorio Pedro acquire a vested right in the cockpit license issued under Ordinance No. 35 such that Ordinance No. 36 could not lawfully impair it?
- Was Ordinance No. 36 void for partiality (i.e., enacted for a special purpose to injure petitioner)?
- Did Ordinance No. 36 unlawfully delegate legisla...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)