Case Summary (G.R. No. 34564)
Relevant Facts
On June 18, 1930, Basilio Carino applied for a license to open a cockpit in Calindagan, Dumaguete, tendering a total of P500, which included P450 for the license and P50 for the internal revenue tax as per municipal ordinance No. 236. However, the request was denied by Jamoralne, who argued that there was no law or ordinance mandating him to issue the license as applied for. The trial court dismissed Carino's complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, prompting Carino to appeal.
Initial Court's Findings
The initial court found that municipal ordinance No. 236 was invalid as it had been disapproved by the provincial board of Oriental Negros, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The court also ruled that it could not compel Jamoralne to issue the license through a writ of mandamus, as the ordinance had not been legally enacted.
Argument for Appellant
Carino contended that the trial court erred in declaring the ordinance null and void, as well as in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. His claim was primarily based on the assertion that the municipal council had the requisite authority to legislate concerning cockpits, as outlined in the Administrative Code.
Legislative Authority
Under Section 2243 of the Administrative Code, municipal councils have the discretionary power to regulate cockpits and cockfighting. Additionally, Section 2233 tasks the provincial board with assessing the legality of municipal ordinances. Carino pointed out that while the provincial board disapproved the ordinance citing it was contrary to state policy, such disapproval should only occur if an ordinance exceeds the council’s conferred powers—a condition Carino argued was not met in this case.
Relevant Legal Precedents
In the case of Gabriel vs. Provincial Board of Pampanga, it was established that a provincial board cannot invalidate a municipal ordinance unless it is beyond the powers granted to the municipal council. The principles from this case were deemed applicable in the current scenario, indicating that the provincial board acted outside its authority in disapproving the ordinance on grounds of state policy rather than powers conferred.
Appellant's Contentions Regarding the Ordinance
Carino argued that he was entitled to the license based on the valid enactment of ordinance No. 236, which had established a significantly reduced licensing fee for cockpits in an effort to regulate and salvage tax revenues while combatting the existence of clandestine gambling activities.
Judicial Authority
Section 2236 of the Administrative Code asserts that judicial authority exists to determine the validity of municipal ordinances and acts. This provision affirms that courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of municipal actions, irrespective of prior administrative
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 34564)
Overview of the Case
- The case involves Basilio Carino, the plaintiff and appellant, who applied for a license to operate a cockpit in Calindagan, Dumaguete, Oriental Negros.
- The defendant, Arsenio Jamoralne, the municipal treasurer, refused to accept the payment of the required fees and issue the license.
- Carino sought a writ of mandamus, claiming no other adequate remedy was available to enforce his right to the license.
Initial Proceedings
- Carino offered to pay P500, which included P450 for the municipal ordinance and P50 for the internal revenue tax.
- The municipal treasurer denied the request based on the claim that there was no ordinance in force empowering him to issue the license.
- The case was tried in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros, where the court dismissed the complaint citing lack of jurisdiction.
Grounds for Appeal
- Carino appealed the dismissal, asserting three main errors by the trial court:
- The court's assertion that municipal ordinance No. 236 was null and void.
- The trial court's claim that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
- The determination that a writ of mandamus was not applicable.
Legislative Background
- Details of relevant municipal ordinances:
- Municipal ordinance No. 207 (December 13, 1927) a