Sarmiento v. Belderol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipal Council of Tagbilaran, Bohol, enacted Ordinance No. 12, series of 1956, which prohibited the establishment of cockpits within 100 lineal meters from any public building, school, hospital, or church. An application to construct a cockpit was denied because it was within this prohibited zone. Subsequently, a permit was issued to Eugenio Inting, et al., for a cockpit in the same area, based on an employee's certification that it was 131 meters away from Rafael Palma College. However, subsequent investigations indicated the cockpit was within the prohibited distance. Procedural History: Plaintiffs Marcelo Sarmiento, et al., protested the issuance of the permit. The Municipal Mayor and Council advised Sarmiento to go to court. The Office of the President intervened, requesting an explanation for the permit's issuance. Three days later, the Municipal Council enacted Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, which abolished the 100-meter distance requirement for cockpits and made it retroactive to May 17, 1955. Sarmiento, et al., filed a complaint for damages, which was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Bohol, upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958. Plaintiffs appealed. The Petition: Plaintiffs-appellants appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, arguing that Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, was invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, enacted by the Municipal Council of Tagbilaran, Bohol, abolishing the 100-meter distance requirement for cockpits, is valid. Whether the operation of a cockpit within 100 meters from a school building, under the circumstances, was legal.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance is reversed. Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, is declared null and void insofar as it abolishes the distance limitation on cockpits. The operation of the cockpit by appellees Inting, et al., is held to be in violation of Ordinance No. 12, series of 1956. The permit issued to appellees is declared null and void. No award for damages is made.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958: The Supreme Court held that Republic Act No. 1224, which grants municipal councils the power to regulate or prohibit places of amusement and determine the distance for cockpits, does not grant the authority to abolish the distance requirement entirely. The law gives discretion to determine the appropriate distance, not to exempt cockpits from observing any distance at all. The Court reasoned that the legislative intent was not to allow cockpits to be established at any place without regard to proximity to public buildings, schools, or churches. The authority to determine the distance implies the power to set a reasonable limit, not to remove the limit altogether. Furthermore, the Court found that the enactment of Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, three days after the Mayor was required by the Office of the President to explain the permit issuance, and its retroactive effect, indicated that the ordinance was enacted solely to favor specific individuals, rendering it null and void for being partial. The Court cited U.S. v. Abendan and Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal in support of this conclusion. On the legality of the cockpit operation: Since Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, was declared null and void, the original Ordinance No. 12, series of 1956, remained in effect. This ordinance imposed a 100-lineal meter distance requirement from any public building, school, hospital, or church. The evidence presented showed that the cockpit operated by appellees Inting, et al., was within this prohibited zone, as indicated by multiple investigations and measurements. Therefore, the operation of the cockpit violated the provisions of Ordinance No. 12, series of 1956. The permit issued for its operation was consequently declared null and void.
Main Doctrine
A municipal council's authority to determine the distance for cockpits from public buildings does not include the power to abolish the distance requirement entirely. An ordinance enacted to favor specific individuals by retroactively removing such a requirement is void.