Canet v. Decena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, Camarines Sur, passed Resolution No. 049, Series of 1998, authorizing petitioner Rolando N. Canet to establish and operate a cockpit. Subsequently, Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999, intended to regulate cockpit operations, was returned to the Sangguniang Bayan for lacking rules and regulations and a separability clause. The Sangguniang Bayan then resolved to withdraw and shelf Ordinance No. 001 indefinitely. Petitioner, relying on Resolution No. 049, applied for a mayor's permit to operate a cockpit. Respondent Mayor Julieta A. Decena denied the application, citing the lack of a municipal ordinance authorizing the operation of cockpits, as the authority to license and regulate such activities is vested in the Sangguniang Bayan under the Local Government Code. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for Mandamus and Damages with Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction compelling the Mayor to issue the permit. Respondent Mayor filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA issued a temporary restraining order and later made it permanent, annulling and setting aside the RTC's Resolution and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Mayor can be compelled to issue a mayor's permit for the operation of a cockpit in the absence of a municipal ordinance authorizing the same. Whether Resolution No. 049, Series of 1998, is sufficient basis for the issuance of a mayor's permit despite the withdrawal of Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Mayor can be compelled to issue a mayor's permit for the operation of a cockpit in the absence of a municipal ordinance authorizing the same: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Mayor cannot be compelled to issue the permit. Section 447(a)(3)(v) of the Local Government Code of 1991 explicitly vests in the Sangguniang Bayan the authority to authorize and license the establishment, operation, and maintenance of cockpits. This authority is to be exercised through an ordinance. The Court emphasized that the petitioner admitted the absence of an ordinance in Bula, Camarines Sur, that specifically authorizes the grant of a mayor's permit for cockpit operations. While petitioner invoked Resolution No. 049, S. 1998, the Court found it insufficient as a basis for implementation without a corresponding ordinance. Compelling the Mayor to issue the permit would violate the explicit provisions of the Local Government Code and encroach upon her administrative prerogatives. The Court further noted that Municipal Tax Ordinances Nos. 01, S. 1989, and 05, S. 1993, which generally provide for business permits, did not contain specific provisions for cockpit operations and related fees. Ordinance No. 001, S. 1999, which did, was withdrawn by the Sangguniang Bayan. Therefore, without an effective ordinance allowing cockpit operation, the Mayor cannot be mandated to issue the permit. On the issue of whether Resolution No. 049, Series of 1998, is sufficient basis for the issuance of a mayor's permit despite the withdrawal of Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999: The Court ruled that Resolution No. 049, Series of 1998, authorizing the petitioner to establish and operate a cockpit, cannot be implemented in the absence of a valid ordinance. The Local Government Code mandates that the authority to license and regulate cockpits is vested in the Sangguniang Bayan, which must act through an ordinance. The withdrawal of Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999, which was intended to provide the necessary regulatory framework, left a void. The Court applied the principle of statutory construction, specifically expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes others), and expressum facit cessare tacitum (what is expressed puts an end to what is implied). This means that the specific enumeration of powers in the law should not be extended by interpretation to include matters not expressly provided for. The Court reiterated that it cannot supply legislative gaps or rewrite laws to conform to what it believes should be the law. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that statutes authorizing gambling activities, such as cockfighting, should be strictly construed to limit rather than expand the rights claimed under their authority.
Main Doctrine
A municipal mayor cannot be compelled to issue a business permit for the operation of a cockpit in the absence of a municipal ordinance specifically authorizing such operation and prescribing the necessary fees, as the authority to grant such licenses and regulate cockfighting is vested in the Sangguniang Bayan under Section 447(a)(3)(v) of the Local Government Code of 1991.