Title
Philippine Gamefowl Commission vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 72969-70
Decision Date
Dec 17, 1986
Jurisdictional dispute between PGC and Bogo municipality over cockpit licensing; Supreme Court ruled municipal government holds authority, PGC overstepped by canceling Sevilla’s license and favoring Acusar.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 72969-70)

Applicable Law

Presidential Decree No. 449, known as the Cockfighting Law of 1974, sets forth regulations for the operation of cockpits. P.D. 1802 and P.D. 1802-A grant licensing authority to city and municipal mayors in conjunction with their respective Sanggunians. Additionally, the Local Government Code outlines the municipalities' powers to regulate local affairs, including cockfighting.

Jurisdictional Conflict

Acusar operated the sole cockpit in Bogo but was ordered to relocate it as it was situated in a prohibited area. His failure to comply with this order resulted in the phasing out of his cockpit, which the Philippine Constabulary acknowledged. Following this, the Court of First Instance of Cebu determined that Acusar waived his rights to operate by not relocating, thereby complicating his claim.

License Issuance and Legal Actions

In July 1980, Sevilla was granted a license to operate a new cockpit by Mayor Celestino E. Martinez Jr., which prompted Acusar to challenge this issuance. His appeals to various legal authorities to revoke Sevilla's license were unsuccessful, culminating in a decision from the Intermediate Appellate Court that dismissed his petition.

Philippine Gamefowl Commission's Role

Acusar turned to the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC) for renewal of his license, initially achieving an interlocutory order allowing temporary operation. This order was subsequently challenged by both Sevilla and the municipal government in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The Intermediate Appellate Court issued a temporary restraining order against the PGC's order while the matter was under review.

Resolution by the PGC

On December 6, 1984, the PGC resolved Acusar's petition favorably, mandating the municipal officials to issue a permit to Acusar and rescinding Sevilla's license. However, this resolution faced appeal, and the Intermediate Appellate Court ultimately rendered the PGC's decision null and void, prompting Acusar to file for certiorari.

Comparative Power Analysis

A detailed analysis of the powers conferred upon the PGC and municipal authorities indicates that mayors, with their Sanggunians, possess primary authority to issue licenses for cockpits, subject to PGC's established guidelines. The PGC's authority is primarily concerned with international derbies rather than local operations.

Supervision versus Control

The distinction between supervision and control was pivotal. Supervision entails overseeing compliance and may not extend to annulling subordinates' actions, whereas control would allow for such annulments. The PGC overstepped its authority by attempting to cancel Sevilla’s permit and substitute its judgment for that of municipal officials without proper grounds.

Findings of Fact

The Court of Appeals supported the finding that Acusar's cockpit was indeed in a prohibited area and automatically phased out due to his refusal to relocate, affirming that Sevil

...continue reading

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