Pelino v. Ichon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff was operating a cockpit under a municipal ordinance allowing only one such establishment. Subsequently, the municipal council enacted another ordinance authorizing as many cockpits as applied for. The Municipal President vetoed this new ordinance, but the municipal council overrode the veto with a two-thirds vote. The defendant obtained a license to operate a cockpit under this new ordinance. Procedural History: The plaintiff filed an action seeking to declare the new ordinance null and void and to recover damages from the defendant. A preliminary injunction was issued, later lifted upon the filing of a bond by the defendant. The trial court declared the ordinance null and void, revived the injunction, and ordered the defendant to pay damages. The Appeal: The defendants appealed the trial court's decision, primarily challenging the annulment of Municipal Ordinance No. 8. The sole ground for the trial court's decision was that the ordinance was contrary to the spirit of Section 2338 of the Revised Administrative Code and exceeded the powers granted to the municipal council by Section 2243 of the same code.
Issue(s)
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 8 of Tanauan, authorizing as many cockpits as there are applicants, is null and void. Whether the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the appealed judgment, declared Municipal Ordinance No. 8 of Tanauan valid, and absolved the defendant from the payment of damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the municipal council acted within its powers in enacting Municipal Ordinance No. 8. Section 2243 of the Revised Administrative Code grants municipal councils the discretion to regulate or prohibit cockpits. While they may absolutely prohibit them, if they do not, cockpits are deemed authorized subject to regulation. The power to regulate includes the power to fix the number of cockpits, as the law neither fixes nor limits this number to one. Therefore, authorizing as many cockpits as there are applicants falls within the council's regulatory authority and does not contravene the spirit of Section 2338 of the Revised Administrative Code. The ordinance was thus declared valid. On Issue 2: The Court found no cause of action against the defendant for damages. The defendant operated his cockpit pursuant to a license issued under Municipal Ordinance No. 8, and he had no involvement in the enactment of the ordinance itself. The damages claimed by the plaintiff were based on the establishment of the defendant's cockpit, which was legally authorized by the valid ordinance. Since the ordinance was valid and the defendant acted in accordance with its provisions, he cannot be held liable for damages arising from its implementation.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that a municipal council acted within its powers when it enacted an ordinance authorizing as many cockpits as there are applicants, thereby repealing a previous ordinance that allowed only one. The Court emphasized that Section 2243 of the Revised Administrative Code grants municipal councils the discretion to regulate or prohibit cockpits, and this power to regulate includes the authority to determine the number of such establishments. Consequently, the ordinance was declared valid, and the damages awarded against the defendant, who operated under a license from this ordinance, were reversed.