Inting v. Belderol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eugenio Inting, president of Tagbilaran Cockpit, obtained a building permit and subsequently an operating permit for a cockpit in Tagbilaran, Bohol. He paid the required permit and license fees. On April 1, 1958, the municipal council approved Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958, which mandated that the right to operate a cockpit be awarded through public bidding, with a minimum bid of P1,000.00, and stipulated specific streets where cockpits could be constructed. The ordinance also set a yearly permit fee of P20.00 and a license fee of P2,400.00. Consequently, Tagbilaran Cockpit, located outside the designated streets, would have to cease operations after April 16, 1958, the date set for the public bidding. Procedural History: Inting and his association filed a complaint seeking to nullify Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958, and to obtain a preliminary injunction against its closure. The lower court sustained the ordinance's validity but declared it ineffective for not having been approved by the Secretary of Finance, as required for ordinances increasing license taxes by more than fifty percent. The court enjoined the defendants from enforcing the ordinance until it received the necessary approval. The Appeal: The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not declaring Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958, null and void, and in holding it merely ineffective. They contended that the municipal council lacked the authority to sell the privilege to operate a cockpit via public auction and that the ordinance contravened Republic Act No. 1224.
Issue(s)
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958, was valid and effective. Whether the appeal had become moot and academic due to subsequent events.
Ruling
The appeal was dismissed for being moot and academic. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the validity of Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958, because Ordinance No. 15, series of 1960, had been enacted, which repealed or modified the former ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court did not directly rule on the validity of Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958. However, the lower court had sustained its validity but declared it ineffective for lack of approval from the Secretary of Finance. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, arguing for its nullity on grounds of lack of authority and conflict with Republic Act No. 1224. The defendants, instead of filing a brief, manifested that a new ordinance, Ordinance No. 15, series of 1960, had been approved, which repealed or modified Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958. This supervening event rendered the resolution of the validity of the earlier ordinance unnecessary. On Issue 2: The Court held that the appeal had become moot and academic. The enactment of Ordinance No. 15, series of 1960, which repealed or modified Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958, meant that the subject matter of the appeal was no longer a live controversy. The provisions of the new ordinance directly conflicted with the provisions of the ordinance being assailed, making it pointless to adjudicate the legality of the latter. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it had lost its practical utility and purpose.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot and academic because a subsequent ordinance, Ordinance No. 15, series of 1960, had been enacted, which repealed or modified Ordinance No. 3, series of 1958, the subject of the appeal. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the validity of the earlier ordinance as it was no longer in effect, emphasizing that judicial decisions should address live controversies with practical implications.