Title
Tan vs. Perena
Case
G.R. No. 149743
Decision Date
Feb 18, 2005
A 1995 case where a petitioner sought to operate a cockpit in Daanbantayan, Cebu, challenged by an existing operator. The Supreme Court upheld P.D. 449's one-cockpit rule, invalidating a municipal ordinance allowing three, affirming the injunction against the petitioner.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149743)

Applicable Laws and Framework

The legal context is primarily governed by the Cockfighting Law of 1974, which limits the number of cockpits to one per municipality, or two if the population exceeds 100,000. However, the Local Government Code of 1991 subsequently granted municipal governments the authority to license and regulate cockpits, potentially conflicting with earlier restrictions under the Cockfighting Law.

Factual Background

In 1974, the Cockfighting Law was enacted, limiting municipalities to one cockpit unless the population warranted more. The Local Government Code of 1991 empowered local officials in cities and municipalities to issue licenses for cockpits. The Sangguniang Bayan of Daanbantayan first established guidelines for cockpits through Municipal Ordinances Nos. 6 and 7. The latter ordinance permitted up to three cockpits in the municipality, a significant deviation from the Cockfighting Law.

Procedural History

Tan applied for a license to operate a cockpit, which was granted by Mayor Lamberto Te, leading PereAas to file a complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages, asserting the lack of legal basis for a second cockpit. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially issued a preliminary injunction but later ruled in favor of Tan, asserting that the local ordinances were valid, despite conflicting with the national law.

Court of Appeals Decision

PereAas appealed the RTC ruling. The Court of Appeals determined that while the Local Government Code did empower local authorities, it did not render the Cockfighting Law obsolete. The appellate court invalidated Ordinance No. 7 for contravening the Cockfighting Law, hence it ruled that Tan must be restrained from operating his cockpit in Daanbantayan.

Legal Questions Presented

The critical issues for resolution included whether the Local Government Code negated the Cockfighting Law and if a municipal ordinance's validity could be assessed in an action seeking only damages. The petitioners contended that the appellate court’s action was an unauthorized collateral attack on Ordinance No. 7, as the original complaint did not question its validity.

Judicial Reasoning

The Supreme Court recognized that the validity of Ordinance No. 7 was central to the examination of both the right to operate a second cockpit and the determination of damages sought by PereAas. The Court ruled that regardless of the powers conferred to the local government under the Local Government Code, the one-cockpit-per-municipality rule was still in effect under the Cockfighting Law. Thus, the local ordinance exceeded the powers granted by the national legislation.

Conclus

...continue reading

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