Du v. Jayoma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the operation of a cockpit in Mabini, Bohol. The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Mabini enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 1, series of 1988, mandating a public bidding for cockpit operation every four years. While Engr. Edgardo Carabuena was the winning bidder for the 1989-1992 period, he failed to meet legal requirements. Consequently, the SB authorized petitioner Danilo Du to continue operating the cockpit temporarily. However, in July 1997, the SB discovered Du was operating in violation of the ordinance and passed Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997, suspending his operation. The Mayor subsequently ordered Du to cease all cockfighting activities. Procedural History: Aggrieved by the suspension, petitioner Danilo Du filed a Petition for Prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, seeking to prevent the Mayor and members of the Sangguniang Bayan from suspending his cockpit operation. The RTC initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order and later allowed an amendment to include damages. On October 5, 2004, the RTC ruled in favor of Du, ordering the respondents to pay moral damages, unearned income, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision on July 11, 2006, finding that Du had no vested right to operate the cockpit and thus was not entitled to damages. The CA denied Du's motion for reconsideration on October 4, 2006. The Petition: Petitioner Danilo Du filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. Du argues that Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997, was ultra vires, maliciously enforced, and violated due process, leading to his entitlement to actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. He contends the suspension was politically motivated. The respondents, echoing the CA's findings, maintain that Du lacked a vested right to operate the cockpit and that the suspension was lawful and pursuant to existing ordinances.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner is not entitled to damages because he failed to establish a cause of action. Whether petitioner had a legal right to operate a cockpit that was violated by the respondents, considering the nature of a cockpit license as a privilege and the authority of the Sangguniang Bayan. Whether the suspension of petitioner's cockpit operation was lawful and complied with due process, given the validity of Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997, and the nature of a cockpit license.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the petitioner is entitled to damages: The Court held that petitioner is not entitled to damages because he failed to establish a cause of action, which requires the existence of a legal right in his favor. The authority granted to petitioner to operate a cockpit was temporary and conditional, stemming from Resolution No. 127, series of 1988, which was intended to be effective only until the winning bidder complied with legal requirements or until December 31, 1992. The Court found that petitioner's continued operation beyond this period, even with a business permit, did not grant him a license to operate a cockpit, as the power to authorize and license such operations is vested in the Sangguniang Bayan under Section 447(a)(3)(v) of the LGC. Therefore, the suspension of his operation by Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997, was a valid exercise of the Sangguniang Bayan's power, and the Mayor's enforcement of this resolution was a lawful executive duty. Without a legal right, there can be no violation of such right, and consequently, no actionable injury or damage. On whether petitioner had a legal right to operate a cockpit: The Court found that petitioner did not possess a legal right to operate a cockpit beyond the period stipulated or upon compliance by the winning bidder. The initial authorization under Resolution No. 127 was a temporary measure. The Court emphasized that a license to operate a cockpit is a mere privilege, not a property right, and can be revoked when public interests require it. The fact that no public bidding was conducted for the period from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 1997, meant that petitioner could not claim to be duly authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan for that period. His business permit for 1997 did not supersede the Sangguniang Bayan's authority to license cockpit operations. On whether the suspension of petitioner's cockpit operation was lawful and complied with due process: The Court affirmed the validity of Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997, stating that resolutions, like ordinances, are presumed valid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. There was no evidence presented to show that the resolution was invalid or issued beyond the powers of the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor. The Court also noted that a license to operate a cockpit is a privilege, and its revocation does not constitute a deprivation of property without due process. Therefore, petitioner's claim of being deprived of due process was without merit, as the suspension was based on a valid resolution enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan and enforced by the Mayor in the exercise of their respective powers.
Main Doctrine
In the absence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff, there can be no cause of action, and consequently, no entitlement to damages.