Tan v. Pereña
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 449, the Cockfighting Law of 1974, limited the number of cockpits to one per city or municipality, with an exception for those with populations over one hundred thousand, allowing two. In 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Daanbantayan, Cebu, enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 6, which initially followed the limits of P.D. No. 449 but allowed for amendment if the municipal population warranted. Subsequently, Municipal Ordinance No. 7 amended Section 5 to allow up to three cockpits. Petitioner Leonardo Tan applied for a permit to operate a cockpit. At the time, respondent Socorro Y. Pereña was the sole licensed operator. Petitioner Lamberto Te, the mayor, issued a permit to Tan. Procedural History: Pereña filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for injunction against Tan, Te, and Roberto Uy, alleging no lawful basis for a second cockpit and claiming injury to her business. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of damages and upholding the validity of the ordinances and the mayor's permit. The RTC declared Ordinance Nos. 6 and 7, and a franchise resolution for Tan, as valid, reasoning that any doubt should favor the local government unit's power under the Local Government Code of 1991. Pereña appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA declared Ordinance No. 7 invalid for allowing an unconditional number of cockpits, thus dispensing with the standard set by P.D. No. 449, though it noted the issue was mooted by the expiration of Tan's permit. The CA affirmed the denial of damages but modified the RTC's decision by enjoining Tan from operating a cockpit. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning whether the Local Government Code rendered the Cockfighting Law inoperative and whether the validity of a municipal ordinance could be determined in an action for damages without a specific prayer for its nullity. The Supreme Court agreed to review the validity of Ordinance No. 7 in light of Section 5(b) of the Cockfighting Law.
Issue(s)
Whether the Local Government Code of 1991 rendered Section 5(b) of the Cockfighting Law of 1974 inoperative. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Municipal Ordinance No. 7 invalid in an action for damages, constituting a collateral attack on the ordinance's validity. Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 7 of Daanbantayan is valid despite its apparent conflict with Section 5(b) of the Cockfighting Law of 1974.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' grant of injunction is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Local Government Code of 1991 rendered Section 5(b) of the Cockfighting Law of 1974 inoperative: The Court held that the Local Government Code did not repeal the Cockfighting Law. While Section 447(a)(3)(v) of the Local Government Code grants Sangguniang Bayans the power to authorize and license cockpits, "any law to the contrary notwithstanding," this phrase was intended to clarify that the power to license cockpits was removed from the Philippine Gamefowl Commission and vested in local government units, not to override specific limitations like the number of cockpits allowed. Implied repeals are disfavored, and the provisions of the Local Government Code and the Cockfighting Law can stand together. The Local Government Code speaks to the identity of the wielder of the power, while the Cockfighting Law imposes limitations on how that power may be exercised. Therefore, the one-cockpit-per-municipality rule under the Cockfighting Law remains in effect. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Municipal Ordinance No. 7 invalid in an action for damages, constituting a collateral attack on the ordinance's validity: The Court found that the validity of Ordinance No. 7 became a justiciable matter because the respondent's complaint for damages and injunction implicitly questioned the legal basis for allowing a second cockpit, and the petitioners raised the ordinance's validity as an affirmative defense. Furthermore, both the RTC and the CA extensively discussed the ordinance's validity in their rulings. While the respondent did not explicitly pray for the annulment of Ordinance No. 7, her allegations and the nature of the relief sought (injunction) necessitated a determination of the ordinance's legality. The Court of Appeals' statement that Ordinance No. 7 "should therefore be held invalid" was a conclusion reached after considering the arguments presented, and the subsequent injunction issued against Tan's operation was a logical consequence of this finding, even if the issue of the ordinance's validity was deemed moot by the CA due to the permit's expiration. On the issue of whether Municipal Ordinance No. 7 of Daanbantayan is valid despite its apparent conflict with Section 5(b) of the Cockfighting Law of 1974: The Court ruled that Ordinance No. 7 is invalid because it contravenes the Cockfighting Law. Section 5(b) of the Cockfighting Law, which limits the number of cockpits, is a valid exercise of police power by the national government. This regulation is aimed at controlling cockfighting, which is a form of gambling and can be a distraction to productivity. Allowing more cockpits than permitted by the Cockfighting Law would undermine the legislative intent to regulate and limit such activities. Therefore, the ordinance, by allowing three cockpits, is void as it conflicts with a valid statute.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; otherwise, it is void. Ordinance No. 7, allowing three cockpits in Daanbantayan, contravened the Cockfighting Law, rendering it void.