Philippine Constabulary v. Sabungan Bagong Silang
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Municipal Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1963, of Mandaluyong, Rizal, prohibited cockfighting except in licensed establishments. However, Section II allowed cockfighting for charitable purposes at the Municipal Mayor's discretion, with permits not exceeding one day per week, and the possibility of extending from daytime to nighttime. Respondent Sabungan Bagong Silang, Inc., a licensed cockpit operator, obtained permits from the Mayor to hold cockfights on Wednesdays. 2. Procedural History: The Chief of the Philippine Constabulary (petitioner) threatened to prevent Sabungan Bagong Silang, Inc. from holding these cockfights, even for charitable purposes, and to prosecute its representatives. In response, Sabungan Bagong Silang, Inc. filed a civil case (No. 7544) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against the Chief of Constabulary, seeking a prohibition against interference. The respondent Judge issued a restraining order on January 30, 1963. Despite repeated motions from the petitioner to lift the restraining order or resolve the case, the respondent Judge took no action for over 15 months, leading the petitioner to file the current original action for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed an original action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to set aside the restraining order issued by the respondent Judge. The petitioner argued that the respondent Judge's prolonged inaction on the restraining order, despite repeated urgings, constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petitioner also highlighted a prior Supreme Court ruling (Quimsing vs. Lachica) that declared similar ordinances void, a point that had been brought to the respondent Judge's attention. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary mandatory injunction and subsequently made it permanent, annulling the lower court's restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by failing to act on the petitioner's motions for over three years. Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1963, of Mandaluyong, Rizal, is valid, particularly its provisions allowing cockfighting for charitable purposes at the discretion of the Municipal Mayor.
Ruling
The Supreme Court annulled the restraining order of January 30, 1963, and made permanent the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the Court. Costs were against respondents Sabungan Bagong Silang, Inc. and Artemio Paguia.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the respondent Judge's failure to act on the petitioner's motions for over three years, despite repeated urgings for early determination, constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This inaction, particularly concerning a restraining order that had been ex parte for 15 months, warranted the issuance of the writs of certiorari and prohibition. The Court emphasized that such prolonged inaction prevented the resolution of the main case and perpetuated an allegedly illegal situation. On the validity of the municipal ordinance: The Court held that the ordinance was invalid. It cited its prior ruling in Quimsing vs. Lachica (L-14683), which declared similar ordinances of Molo, Iloilo, authorizing cockpits on Thursdays, as null and void for violating Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code. Despite the authority granted to municipalities by Republic Act No. 938 (and its successor, Republic Act No. 979) to regulate cockpits, such regulation cannot override national laws or established jurisprudence that prohibit or restrict cockfighting on certain days or under certain conditions. The Court noted that the attention of the respondent Judge had been called to this jurisprudence in the answer filed in the main case.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance prohibiting cockfighting except in duly licensed cockpits, and allowing it for charitable purposes at the discretion of the Municipal Mayor, is null and void if it conflicts with national laws or established jurisprudence, particularly concerning the regulation of cockpits.