Title
Manila Jockey Club, Inc. vs. Games and Amusements Board
Case
G.R. No. L-12727
Decision Date
Feb 29, 1960
Manila Jockey Club challenged GAB's allocation of Sundays for PCSO's sweepstakes races, claiming vested rights. SC upheld GAB's discretion, ruling no vested rights to unreserved days and no deprivation of property under voluntary lease agreements.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197530)

Procedural History

The Manila Jockey Club, Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila, while the Philippine Racing Club, Inc. intervened with the court's permission. They sought a judgment interpreting the aforementioned Republic Acts and asserting that the PCSO lacks the authority to use the Jockey Club's race tracks and equipment without consent. The respondents answered the petition, and the court issued a decision on July 5, 1957.

Court's Findings and Initial Decision

The initial court ruling indicated that the use of premises and equipment by the PCSO did not amount to deprivation of property without due process, as the usage was done under contracts of lease, voluntarily agreed upon by both parties. The court authorized the PCSO to hold regular sweepstakes draws on certain Sundays, thereby reducing the allocation of Sundays available to private entities.

Issue on Racing Days Allocation

Upon appeal, the central issue emerged regarding the placement of the six additional racing days authorized for the PCSO under Republic Act No. 1502. The law had increased the number of sweepstakes races, but did not specify which days they were to occur. The Manila Jockey Club and the Philippine Racing Club argued that these additional races should not affect the Sundays allocated to private entities.

Interpretation of Republic Act No. 309 and 1502

The appellate court analyzed the provisions of Republic Act No. 309, especially Section 4, which enumerated reserved racing days. The law allowed private entities to hold races on unreserved Sundays, and thereby the Games and Amusements Board (GAB) had the authority to reassign racing days to accommodate the additional sweepstakes races. The court concluded that the appellants had no vested rights to specific Sundays, as their race scheduling was conditional upon the GAB's discretion.

Legislative Intent and Historical Context

When examining the legislative history, conflicting interpretations emerged regarding whether the additional sweepstakes races could be incorporated into club race days. Some legislators expressed a desire for integration into club races, but the enacted law did not specifically endorse this view. The court emphasized that the statute needs to disclose legislative intent clearly, and any purported intention not codified within the statute cannot be used to alter its interpretation.

Application of Established Legal Principles

The established legal principle posits that the intent of the legislature must be discernible through the statute itself, and not through extrinsic debates or statements from lawmakers. The court adopted the principle of contemporaneous exposition, which emphasizes long-standing practices surrounding the law, concluding that since weekly race practices had historically occurred on Sundays, the absence of specificity in the statute suggested no intention to change existing practices.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.