Lim v Pacquing

7/26/2019 Lim v Pacquing

1/69

Today is Friday, June 17, 2016

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

E !"#

R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995

N. ALRE!O S. L"M, #n $#% &a'a(y a% Mayor o) Man#*a, an+ ($ C#(y o) Man#*a, petitioners,

N. EL"PE G. PAC-U"NG, a% Ju+, /ran&$ 40, R#ona* Tr#a* Cour( o) Man#*a an+ ASSOC"ATE!RPORAT"ON, respondents%

R. No. 1172 January 27, 1995

O"STO GU"NGONA, JR. an+ !OM"NA!OR R. CEPE!A, petitioners,

N. ET"NO RE3ES an+ ASSOC"ATE! !EELOPMENT CORPORAT"ON, respondents%

!"LLA, J.:

ese t&o '2( cases &hich are inter)related actually in$ol$e si*ple issues% if these issues ha$e apparently beco*e co*plicnot by reason of their nature because of the e$ents and dramatis personae in$ol$ed%

e petition in +%R% o% 110-- &as dis*issed by the First .i$ision of this #ourt on 01 /epte*ber 1- based on a findinre &as no abuse of discretion, *uch less lac3 of or e4cess of 5urisdiction, on the part of respondent 5ude Pacuin8, uin the uestioned orders% Jude Pacuin had earlier issued in #i$il #ase o% 99)-660, RT# of Manila, !ranch -0, t

o&in orders &hich &ere assailed by the Mayor of the #ity of Manila, :on% "lfredo /% ;i*, in said +%R% o% 110--% ?hether the #ity of Manila had the po&er to issue a Jai)"lai franchise to "ssociated .e$elop*en#orporation on 7 /epte*ber 171 in $ie& of e4ecuti$e =rder o% >2 dated 1 January 11 &hichtransferred fro* local o$ern*ents to the +a*es and "*use*ents !oard the po&er to reulate Ja

1 /epte*ber 1-, respondent "ssociated .e$elop*ent #orporation '".#( filed a petition for prohibition,mandamus,nction and da*aes &ith prayer for te*porary restrainin order and@or &rit of preli*inary in5unction in the Reional Tria

Manila aainst petitioner +uinona and then +"! chair*an /u*ulon, doc3eted as #i$il #ase o% -)7166, see3in to$ent +"! fro* &ithdra&in the pro$isional authority that had earlier been ranted to ".#% =n the sa*e day, the RT# onila, !ranch -, throuh presidin Jude Aetino Reyes, issued a te*porary restrainin order en5oinin the +"! fro*hdra&in ".#Bs pro$isional authority% This te*porary restrainin order &as con$erted into a &rit of preli*inary in5unction#Bs postin of a bond in the a*ount of P2,000,000%00%2

bseuently, also in +%R% o% 110--, the Republic of the Philippines, throuh the +a*es and "*use*ents !oard, filed aotion for Cnter$entionD for ;ea$e to File a Motion for reconsideration in Cnter$entionD and to Refer the case to the #ourt Ennc and later a Motion for ;ea$e to File /upple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)in)Cnter$ention and to "d*it "ttachedpple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)in)Cnter$ention%

n En Banc Resolution dated 20 /epte*ber 1-, this #ourt referred +%R% o% 110-- to the #ourt En Bancand reuirepondents therein to co**ent on the afore*entioned *otions%

an&hile, Jude Reyes on 1 =ctober 1- issued another order, this ti*e, rantin ".# a &rit ofi*inarymandatory in5unction aainst +uinona and +"! to co*pel the* to issue in fa$or of ".# the authority to opera%

nona, as e4ecuti$e secretary, and .o*inador #epeda, Jr% as the ne& +"! chair*an, then filed the petition in +%R% o26> assailin the abo$e*entioned orders of respondent Jude Aetino Reyes%

2 =ctober 1-, in +%R% o% 11726>, this #ourt ranted petitionerBs *otion for leave to file supple*ental petition and to*it attached supple*ental petition &ith urent prayer for restrainin order% The #ourt further reuired respondents to file**ent on the petition and supple*ental petition &ith urent prayer for restrainin order% The #ourt li3e&ise set the case ncidents thereof for hearin on 10 o$e*ber 1-%


3/69

he hearin on 10 o$e*ber 1-, the issues to be resol$ed &ere for*ulated by the #ourt as follo&s0 and 9> and a*blininos authoriGed under Presidential .ecree o% 196%

ile 5ai)alai as a sport is not illealper se, the acceptin of bets or &aers on the results of 5ai)alai a*es is undoubtedly

*blin and, therefore, a cri*inal offense punishable under "rticles 1)1 of the Re$ised Penal #ode, unlessit is sho&ter or special la& had been passed allo&in it% ".# has not sho&n any such special la&%

public "ct o% -0 'the Re$ised #harter of the #ity of Manila( &hich &as enacted by #onress on 19 June 1- a$e thnicipal !oard certain delegatedleislati$e po&ers under /ection 19% " perusal of the po&ers enu*erated under /ection&s that these po&ers are basically reulatory in nature%5The reulatory nature of these po&ers finds support not only in thds of the enu*erations under /ection 29 but also in this #ourtBs rulin in(eople v. )era'6 Phil% 6(%

)era, this #ourt declared that a la& &hich i$es the Pro$incial !oard the discretion to deter*ine &hether or not a la& oferal application 'such as, the Probation la&)"ct o% -221( &ould or &ould not be operati$e &ithin the pro$ince, isonstitutional for bein an undue deleation of leislati$e po&er%

* the rulin in )era, it &ould be loical to conclude that, if ".#Bs aru*ents &ere to pre$ail, this #ourt &ould li3e&ise dction 19'55( of the Re$ised #harter of Manila unconstitutional for the po&er it &ould deleate to the Municipal !oard of Muld i$e the latter the absolute and unli*ited discretion to render the penal code pro$isions on a*blin inapplicable orperati$e to persons or entities issued per*its to operate a*blin establish*ents in the #ity of Manila%

need not o to this e4tent, ho&e$er, since the rule is that la&s *ust be presu*ed $alid, constitutional and in har*ony &er la&s% Thus, the rele$ant pro$isions of Rep% "cts os% -0 and - and =rdinance o% 706 should be ta3en toetheruld then be clear that the leislati$e po&ers of the Municipal !oard should be understood to be reulatory in nature and

public "ct o% - should be understood to refer tocongressional franchises, as a necessity for the operation of 5ai)alai%

need not, ho&e$er, aain belabor this issue further since the tas3 at hand &hich &ill ulti*ately, and &ith finality, decide ues in this case is to deter*ine &hether P. o% 771 $alidly re$o3ed ".#Bs franchise to operate the 5ai)alai, assu*in '&cedin( that it indeed possessed such franchise under =rdinance o% 706%

# arues that P. o% 771 is unconstitutional for bein $iolati$e of the eual protection and non)i*pair*ent pro$isions onstitution% =n the other hand, the o$ern*ent contends that P. o% 771 is a $alid e4ercise of the inherentpolice po&er te%

e police po&er has been described as the least li*itable of the inherent po&ers of the /tate% Ct is based on the ancient dsalus populi est suprema le&'the &elfare of the people is the supre*e la&%( Cn the early case ofubi v. (rovincial Board


7/69

doro'> Phil% 660(, this #ourt throuh Mr% Justice +eore "% Malcol* stated thus H%/% 217, 2 ;% Ed% 2d ->9 1718 pc3, -%( ,here is# the first place# absolute lac' of evidence to support ADCs allegation of improper motivation in the issua"o. 0. !n the second place# as already averred# this Court cannot go behind the e&pressed and proclaimed purposes


8/69

0# which are reasonable and even laudable%

hould also be re*e*bered that P. o% 771 pro$ides that the national government can subseuently rant franchises uper application and $erification of the ualifications of the applicant% ".# has not alleed that it filed an application for anchise &ith the national o$ern*ent subseuent to the enact*ent of P. o% 771D thus, the alleations abo$e*entioned

ference to a select roup( are based on con5ectures, speculations and i*ained biases &hich do not &arrant thesideration of this #ourt%

the other hand, it is note&orthy that &hile then president "uino issued E4ecuti$e =rder o% 16 re$o3in P. o% 910 'nted a franchise to a Marcos)crony to operate the 5ai)alai(, she did not scrap or repeal P. o% 771 &hich had re$o3ed anchises to operate 5ai)alais issued by local o$ern*ents, thereby re)affir*in the o$ern*ent policy that franchises to opalais are for the national o$ern*ent 'not local o$ern*ents( to consider and appro$e%

the alleed $iolation of the non)i*pair*ent and eual protection clauses of the #onstitution, it should be re*e*bered thnchise is not in the strict sense a si*ple contract but rather it is *ore i*portantly, a *ere pri$ilee specially in *atters &&ithin the o$ern*entBs po&er to reulate and e$en prohibit throuh the e4ercise of the police po&er% Thus, a a*blin

nchise is al&ays sub5ect to the e4ercise of police po&er for the public &elfare%

C(! v%",C '10 /#R" -0(, &e held that of P. o% 771 and the reuire*ent of a leislati$e franchise in Republic "ct o% -ers to the t&o 2( la&s and are $iolati$e of the rule that la&s should e*brace one sub5ect &hich shall be e4pressed in t, as arued by ".#% Cn Cordero v. Cabatuando '6 /#R" -19(, this #ourt ruled that the reuire*ent under the constitutioa&s should e*brace only one sub5ect &hich shall be e4pressed in the title is sufficiently *et if the title is co*prehensi$euh reasonably to include the eneral ob5ect &hich the statute see3s to effect, &ithout e4pressin each and e$ery end aans necessary or con$enient for the acco*plishin of the ob5ecti$e%


9/69

the issue of &hether or not there &as ra$e abuse of discretion co**itted by respondent Jude Reyes in issuin theporary restrainin order 'later con$erted to a &rit of preli*inary in5unction( and the &rit of preli*inary mandatory in5uncthold and rule there &as%

ction >, Rule 9 of the rules of #ourt pro$ides for the rounds for the issuance of a preli*inary in5unction% ?hile ".# co

e these rounds, respondent 5ude should ha$e ta3en 5udicial notice of Republic "ct o% - and P. 771, under /ecti 12 of the Rules of court% These la&s neate the e4istence of any leal riht on the part of ".# to the reliefs it souht

ustify the issuance of a &rit of preli*inary in5unction% since P. o% 771 and Republic "ct o% - are presu*ed $alid anstitutional until ruled other&ise by the /upre*e #ourt after due hearin, ".# &as not entitled to the &rits issued andseuently there &as ra$e abuse of discretion in issuin the*%

EREF=RE, for the foreoin reasons, 5ud*ent is hereby rendered% declarin that respondent "ssociated .e$elop*ent corporation '".#( does not possess the reuconressional franchise to operate and conduct the 5ai)alai under Republic "ct o% - and Preside.ecree o% 771%

-% settin aside the &rits of preli*inary in5unction and preli*inary *andatory in5unction issued byrespondent Jude Aetino Reyes in ci$il #ase o% -)7166%

=R.ERE.%

iciano# Bidin# egalado# omero# Bellosillo and *endo2a# --.# concur.

rvasa# C.-. and 1rancisco# --.# too' no part.

S'ara( O'#n#on%

PUNAN,J., concurrin, 1-, E4ecuti$e /ecretary Teofisto +uinona directed +"! #hair*an /u*ulon to hold in abeyance thnt of authority or if any has been issued, to &ithdra& such rant of authority1to the ".#% #onseuently, on /epte*ber 1-

-, the +"! #hair*an re$o3ed the pro$isional authority issued by his office, until the leal issues raised in the /epte*ber 1>cti$e of the E4ecuti$e /ecretary are resol$ed in the proper court% /aid directi$e identified the leal issues as centerin on 1( thstitutionality of P%.% 771D 2( the $alidity of the apparent rant in perpetuity of a *unicipal franchise to *aintain 5ai)alai operatio, >( the po&er of the city of Manila to issue a 5ai)alai franchise in $ie& of E4ecuti$e =rder >2 &hich transferred fro* localern*ents to the +"! the po&er to reulate 5ai)alai%

actin to the cancellation of its pro$isional authority to *aintain 5ai)alai operations, ".#, on /epte*ber 1, 1- filed ation for prohibition, mandamus, in5unction and da*aes &ith prayer for te*porary restrainin order and &rit of preli*inanction in the Manila Reional Trial #ourt of aainst E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and #hair*an /u*ulon% The Reio

al court of *anila, !ranch -, throuh Jude Aetino Reyes on the sa*e day issued an order en5oinin the E4ecuti$e /ecr the +"! #hair*an fro* i*ple*entin their directi$e and *e*orandu*, respecti$ely%

/epte*ber 16, 1- +"!, representin the Republic of the Philippines, filed a *otion for inter$ention, for lea$e to file a

tion for reconsideration)in)inter$ention and for reference of the case to the #ourt en banc in +%R% o% 110--% "ctin ontion, the First .i$ision referred the case to the #ourt en banc, &hich, in a resolution dated 20 /epte*ber 1-, accepted

*e and reuired the respondents therein to co**ent%

=ctober 11, 1- the E4ecuti$e /ecretary and the ne& +"! #hair*an .o*ino #epeda, Jr% filed &ith this #ourt a petitcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailin Jude Aetino ReyesB earlier order%

=ctober 1% 1-, Jude Reyes issued another order rantin the ".!Bs *otion for a &rit of preli*inarymandatory in5uinst the E4ecuti$e /ecretary and the +"! #hair*an and to co*pel the* to issue the necessary authority, licenses and3in per*its to the ".#, its personnel and players%

e o$ern*ent souht lea$e to file a supple*ental petition 'and to ad*it attached supple*ental petition( &ith urent pray

estrainin order assailin the =ctober 1, 1- =rder of Jude Reyes% ?e ranted lea$e to file said supple*ental petitiod*it supple*ental petition and reuired respondents therein to file their co**ent on =ctober 2, 1-%

e ".# *aintains it oriinal position that =rdinance o% 706, enacted pursuant to the #harter of the #ity of Manila undepublic "ct o% -0 ranted a $alid and subsistin municipal franchise for the operation of the !asue pelota a*e 5ai alaponse to the o$ern*entBs $ehe*ent ob5ections aainst ".#Bs operation of its a*blin operations 2the ".# for the firstllened the constitutional $alidity of P%.% o% 771 insofar as it re$o3ed the authority ranted to it by =rdinance o% 706 as $iohe non)i*pair*ent of contracts and eual protection clauses of the constitution% =rdinance 706 reads


11/69

/ec% 1% The Mayor is authoriGed, as he is hereby authoriGed to allo& and per*it the "ssociated.e$elop*ent #orporation to establish, *aintain and operate a 5ai)alai in the #ity of Manila under thfollo&in ter*s and conditions and such other ter*s and conditions as he 'the Mayor( *ay prescribood reasons of eneral interest, # counselBs areein to ha$e all the issues raised by the parties in the case at bench pa$es the &ay for us to consider ttion filed in +%R% o% 11726> as one for quo warranto%

EREF=RE, on the basis of the foreoin pre*ises, 5ud*ent is hereby rendered


13/69

1% "llo&in the republic to inter$ene in +%R% o% 110--%

2% .eclarin that P%.% 771 is a $alid and subsistin la&%

>% .eclarin that the ".# does not possess the reuired leislati$e franchise to operate the 5ai)alai R%"% - and P%.% 771%

-% /ettin aside the &rits of preli*inary in5unction and preli*inary *andatory in5unction issued by JuAetino Reyes%

"!E, JR., J., concurrin, &hether public respondent Jude Aetino Reyes acted &ith ra$e abuse o

cretion in issuin the te*porary restrainin order and subseuently the &rit of preli*inary *andatory in5unction in #i$il c-)7166%

to the first issue, C sub*it that unless &e either a*end the rule on inter$ention or suspend it, the *otion to inter$ene *uied% Hnder /ection 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of #ourt, such *otion *ay be allo&ed onlybefore or during a trial% /aid sectds-,

The herein *o$ants, +reenfield .e$elop*ent #orporation, "laban .e$elop*ent #orporation, Ra*!aatsin, and all buyers fro* the*, at least those &ith ostensible proprietary interests as theMER";#=, "laban :ills /ubdi$ision, #ielito :o*es /ubdi$ision, Tahanan Aillae, the Ministry of:ih&ays insofar as the /outh /uper :ih&ay is affected, are indispensable parties to these proceeas it has been sho&n affir*ati$ely that they ha$e such an interest in the contro$ersy or sub5ect *atta final ad5udication cannot be *ade, in their absence, &ithout in5urin or affectin such interest% The

5oinder *ust be ordered in order to pre$ent *ultiplicity of suits, so that the &hole *atter in dispute *

deter*ined once and for all in one litiation%

d, suarely on the aspect of inter$ention, it found that the denial thereof

&ill lead the #ourt to co**it an act of in5ustice to the *o$ants, to their successors)in)interest and topurchasers for $alue and in ood faith and thereby open the door to fraud, falsehood and*isrepresentation, should inter$enorsB clai*s be pro$en to be true% For it cannot be ainsaid that if tpetition for reconstitution is finally ranted, the chaos and confusion arisin fro* a situation &here tcertificates of title of the *o$ants co$erin lare areas of land o$erlap or encroach on properties theto &hich is bein souht to be reconstituted by pri$ate respondent, &ho herself indicates in her =ppthat, accordin to the .irector of ;ands, the o$erlappin e*braces so*e 97 hectares only, is certainine$itable%

en too, it *ay be stressed that said case oriinated fro* a proceedin to reconstitute a certificate of title filed by pri$atepondent% "fter trial, the #ourt of First Cnstance issued an order denyin the petition for insufficiency of e$idence% "fter a ne& trial &as ranted and a hearin to recei$e the ne&ly disco$ered e$idence &as co*pleted, the court issued an ordeyin the reconstitution souht for as it still doubted the authenticity and enuineness of the Transfer of #ertificate of Titlht to be reconstituted% The pri$ate respondent appealed the order to the #ourt of "ppeals &hich thereafter pro*ulateision re$ersin the aforesaid orders of the trial court% The .irector of ;and, &hich &as the re*ainin oppositor, filed a *a ne& period to file a *otion for reconsideration of the decision allein e4cusable nelience% Pri$ate respondent filed osition thereto% ?ithout &aitin for the resolution of the *otion, the .irector filed a *otion to ad*it the *otion for


15/69

onsideration attachin thereto said *otion for reconsideration% The #ourt of "ppeals issued a resolution denyin both *he round that the decision had already beco*e final% This &as the resolution &hich the .irector assailed in his petitione& filed &ith this #ourt%

nsiderin then that the inter$ention in the case at bar &as co**enced only after the decision had been e4ecuted, a

pension of the Rules to acco**odate the *otion for inter$ention and the inter$ention itself &ould be arbitrary% The$ern*ent is not &ithout any other recourse to protect any riht or interest &hich the decision *iht ha$e i*paired%

y the *otion to inter$ene and inter$ention proper be, ne$ertheless, treated as a petition for quo warrantoL The *a5oritynion ans&ers it in the affir*ati$e because all the essential reuisites for a petition for quo warrantoare present in saidadins% C a* al*ost te*pted to aree &ith that opinion if not for the fact that there is pendin before the Reional Trial #Manila #i$il #ase o% -)7166 &hich is a petition for prohibition, mandamus, in5unction, and da*aes filed by the "sso$elop*ent #orporation aainst E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and then +a*es and "*use*ent !oard '+"!( #hair*a*ulon% That is the *ore appropriate foru* &here the +o$ern*ent and petitioner +uinona *ay challene the $alidity o#Bs franchise% Cts filin &as pro$o3ed by the &ithdra&al by the +"! of the pro$isional authority it ranted to ".# in $ie&/epte*ber 1- directi$e of E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona infor*in the +"! of sufficient bases to hold in abeyance thration of the 5ai)alai until the leal uestions into the $alidity of the franchise issued to ".#% #onseuently, it is to be lo

su*ed that for its affir*ati$e defenses in #i$il #ase o% -)7166 the +o$ern*ent &ould raise the sa*e issues raised r$ention in +%R% o% 11726>%

cordinly, C $ote to deny the *otion for inter$ention in +%R% o% 110--%

&e$er, C $ote to partially rant the petition in +%R% o% 11726> insofar as &aerin or bettin on the results order and thei*inary *andatory in5unction issued by respondent Jude cannot leally and $alidly allo& such &aerin and bettin% Ctcisely for this reason that C earlier $oted to rant a te*porary restrainin order in +%R% o% 110-- and +%R% o% 11726>train &aerin or bettin% C &ish to reiterate here &hat C stated in *y supple*ental concurrin opinion in +%R% o% 110-

/econdly, to *a3e *y position clear that the dis*issal of the petition should not be construed asco*pellin the #ity of Manila to authoriGe a*blin by allo&in bettin on the results of 5ai)alai% Thedecision *erely dis*issed the petition because the #ourt found no abuse of discretion, *uch lessof e4cess of 5urisdiction, on the part of the respondent 5ude in issuin the challened order directinpetitioner to issue a per*it or license in fa$or of the pri$ate respondent pursuant to =rdinance o% 7That order &as to enforce the final and e4ecutory decision of the Reional Trial #ourt of /epte*b199 in #i$il #ase o% 99)-660, the appeal therefro* to the #ourt of "ppeals by the #ity of Manilaha$in been &ithdra&n by it on February 19% That decision ordered the #ity of Manila to i**edissue to the pri$ate respondent the per*it@license reuired under =rdinance o% 706% The #ity ofManila did in fact issue the reuired per*it or license to the pri$ate respondent for the operation of talai in Manila for the years 199 to 12% e$ertheless, &hen the 5ai)alai co*ple4 &as al*ost co*pthe #ity Mayor refused to rene& the MayorBs Per*it%

There is a clear distinction bet&een the initial duty of the #ity Mayor under =rdinance o% 706 to isthe necessary license or per*it to establish the 5ai)alai fronton and to *aintain and operate the 5ai)aand his subseuent discretion to i*pose other ter*s and conditions for thefinal contractrelati$e to soperation% The trial court specifically said so in its decision of /epte*ber 19% Thus, &hich &as not repealed by P%.% o% 1602 since the for*er isinconsistent &ith the latter in that respect, bettin in

+ai4alaiis illeal unless allo&ed by la&% There &as such a la&% P%.% o% 910, &hich authoriGed the

Philippine -ai4Alaiand "*use*ent #orporation as follo&s)2-, >01(%

is letter dated /epte*ber 9, 1- to President Fidel A% Ra*os, #hair*an Francisco /u*ulon, Jr% of the +a*es anduse*ent !oard '+"!( said that he &ould not authoriGe the openin of ".#Bs 5ai)alai unless he &as i$en a clearance frPresident and until after ".# had co*plied &ith all the reuire*ents of the la&, such as, the distribution of &aer fundd8 licensin of Pelotaris and other personnel 'E4h% F, #i$il #ase o% -)7166, RT#, !r% -, ManilaD +%R% o% 11726>, (%

he position paper anne4ed to the letter, the +"! #hair*an reco**ended the reopenin and operation of the 5ai)alai, st


18/69

ertinent part0D E*psupplied(%

/epte*ber , 1-, #hair*an /u*ulon ranted ".# pro$isional authority to open, sub5ect to the follo&in conditions

1% ?e prohibit you fro* offerin to the public Pic3 6 and &inner Ta3e "ll bettin e$ents until suchas this !oard shall ha$e appro$ed the rules and reulations prepared by *anae*ent o$ernin th*echanics of these e$ents%

2% ;icensin of officials and e*ployees &hose duties are connected directly or indirectly &ith thesuper$ision and operation of 5ai)alai a*es, as *andated by E4ecuti$e =rder 1-1 dated February 216, shall be fully co*plied &ith by you &ithin thirty >0( days fro* date hereof%

>% "ny other deficiencies &e *ay disco$er &ill be accordinly rectified by *anae*ent as directed b!oard%

-% Failure to co*ply &ith any of the rules and reulations prescribed by e4istin la&s and la&ful ordthe !oard, *ay 5ustify &ithdra&al@re$ocation of this pro$isional authority &ithout pre5udice to suchad*inistrati$e sanctions that the !oard *ay dee* proper to i*pose under the circu*stances%

% !y acceptin this pro$isional authority, "ssociated .e$elop*ent #orporation '".#( is dee*ed toareed to the conditions abo$e pro$ided '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 9), -, 2>9, 299(%

/epte*ber 12, 1-, the +"! issued to ".# 5ai)alai ;icense o% -)009 upon pay*ent of the correspondin per*it feense reads as follo&s2, series of 10, incon5unction &ith E4ecuti$e order o% 92-, series of 192, this !oard has this date ranted ".#Represented by +en% "lfredo !% son per*it to hold or conduct a sic8 5ai)alai contests@e4hibition on/epte*ber 12 to 1-, 1-, at the harrison PlaGa #o*ple4, located in :arrison PlaGa, Malate, Manil

This per*it is issued sub5ect to the condition that the pro*oter shall co*ply &ith the pro$isions of

E4ecuti$e order o% 92-, /% 192, the rules and reulations, orders and@or policies adopted or &hichereafter be adopted by the !oard, and &ith the conditions set forth in the application for &hich this has been rantedD and failure on the part of the pro*oter to co*ply &ith any of &hich shall be dee*sufficient cause for the re$ocation thereof '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 0, 2>9, 29(%

o*pliance &ith +"! Rules and Reulations, ".# sub*itted its prora*s of 5ai)alai e$ents for appro$al 'E4hs% =, P and #ase o% -)7166, RT#, !r% -, ManilaD +%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% 20)22(%

ppears that as early as *ay 2>, 1-, Jai)"lai de Manila 'the business na*e of ".#Bs fronton( had inuired fro* +"! a


19/69

la&s and rules o$ernin its 5ai)alai operation% Cn reply, chair*an /u*ulon furnished Jai)"lai de Manila &ith copies of s% >2 and 92- and the Re$ised rules and Reulations for basue pelota +a*es 'E4hs% I and ;, #i$il #ase o% -)716#, !r% -, ManilaD +%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% >01)>02(%

/epte*ber 1>, 1-, E4ecuti$e /ecretary Teofisto +uinona, 5r% issued the follo&in .irecti$e to +"! #hair*an /u*ul

Cn reply to your letter dated /epte*ber 1- reuestin for the PresidentBs appro$al to re)open th"lai in Manila, please be infor*ed that after a re$ie& and study of e4istin la&s, there is sufficient bhold in abeyance the operation of the Jai)"lai until the follo&in leal uestions are properly resol$e

1% ?hether P%.% 771 &hich re$o3ed all e4istin Jai)"lai franchises issued by localo$ern*ent as of 20 "uust 17 is unconstitutional%

2% "ssu*in that the #ity of Manila had the po&er on 7 /epte*ber 171 to issue a J"lai franchise to "ssociated .e$elop*ent #orporation, &hether the franchise rante$alid considerin that the franchise has no duration, and appears to be ranted inperpetuity%

>% ?hether the #ity of Manila had the po&er to issue a Jai)"lai franchise to "ssociat.e$elop*ent #orporation on 7 /epte*ber 171 in $ie& of E4ecuti$e order o% >2 1 January 11 &hich transferred fro* local o$ern*ents to the +a*es and "*use!oard the po&er to reulate Jai)"lai%

,his 7ffice has directed the solicitor 5eneral to bring before the proper court the foregoing issues foresolution. (ending such resolution# you are directed to hold in abeyance the grant of authority# or ifhas been issued# to withdraw such grant of authority# to Associated Development corporation to opehe -ai4Alai in the city of *anila'+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 7)9, -9, 1>D Emphasis supplied8.

/epte*ber 1-, 1-, #hair*an /u*ulon issued a Me*orandu* to ".# that /epte*ber 1-, "ssociated.e$elop*ent #orporation is hereby ordered to cease and desist issues raised in the said directi$e aresol$ed by the proper court% ,he provisional authority issued pending further scrutiny and evaluatio

ADC on 6 $eptember 0669 is hereby withdrawn'+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 1, 1-D E*phasissupplied(%

/epte*ber 1, 1-, ".# filed &ith the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch -, Manila a petition for prohibition,mandamus, in5u da*aes &ith prayer for te*porary restrainin order or &rit of preli*inary in5unction '#ase o% -)7166( aainst E4ec

cretary +uinona and #hair*an /u*ulon assailin the for*erBs .irecti$e and the latterBs Me*orandu* '+%R% o%26>, ollo, pp% >, 20)21, >)7, 167)169(%

the sa*e day, Jude Aetino Reyes issued a te*porary restrainin order en5oinin E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona andair*an /u*ulon fro* i*ple*entin their respecti$e .irecti$e and *e*orandu* '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 2, 10, --

/epte*ber 16, 1-, E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and #hair*an /u*ulon filed an urent *otion to recall the te*potrainin order, &ith opposition to the *otion for issuance of a &rit of preli*inary in5unction% The said *otion &as reiteratesupple*ental *otion filed on /epte*ber 20, 1- '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% 66)7, 76)96(%

an&hile, on /epte*ber 16, 1-, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by +"!, filed in +%R% o% 110-- a *otior$entionD for lea$e to file a *otion for reconsideration)in)inter$entionD to ad*it the attached *otion for reconsideration)in


20/69

r$entionD and to refer the case to the #ourt en banc 'ollo, pp% 21)2-(%

bseuently, and on the different dates, the Republic filed in +%R% o% 110-- the follo&in pleadins< Motion for ;ea$e tpple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)Cn)Cnter$ention 'ollo, pp% 262)26(D /upple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)r$ention 'ollo# pp% 266)290(D Motion for ;ea$e to File /econd /upple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)Cn)Cnter$enti

"d*it attached /econd /upple*ental Motion For Reconsideration)Cn)inter$ention :ollo, pp% >90)>92(D and /econdpple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)Cn)Cnter$ention 'ollo# pp% >9>)-00(%

n on the *otion of the Republic dated /epte*ber 16, 1-, the First .i$ision referred, in its Resolution dated /epte*1-, #ase +%R% o% 110-- to the #ourt en banc, and the latter accepted the sa*e in its Resolution dated /epte*ber- 'ollo# p% 2(%

he *eanti*e, #hair*an /u*ulon resined and .o*inador R% #epeda, 5r% &as appointed as his successor%

/epte*ber >0, 1-, Jude Reyes issued a &rit of preli*inary in5unction '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% 2, -7(%

=ctober 11, 1-, E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and +"! #hair*an #epeda, Jr% filed &ith this #ourt a petition for cert

hibition and mandamus '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 1)11( and on =ctober 2-, 1-, a supple*ental petition '+%R% o26>, ollo, pp% 161)16, 166)>06(% Petitioners assailed the follo&in issuances of Jude Reyes #i$il #ase o% -)716

'1%( Te*porary Restrainin =rder dated /epte*ber 1, 1- directin E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinonchair*an /u*ulon to desist fro* enforcin the .irecti$e dated /epte*ber 1>, 1- and the*e*orandu* dated /epte*ber 1, 1- 'ollo, p% --(D

'2%( =rder dated /epte*ber 2, 1- denyin the Hrent Motion to Recall Te*porary Restrainin =and the Hrent /upple*ental Motion to Recall Te*porary Restrainin =rder 'ollo, p% -6(D

'>%( =rder dated /epte*ber >0, 1- directin the issuance of a ?rit of preli*inary Cn5unction directaainst the aforesaid .irecti$e and Me*orandu* 'ollo, p% -7(D

'-%( order dated =ctober 1, 1- rantin ".#Bs Motion to "*end the petition to #onfor* to theE$idence and directin the issuance of a &rit of preli*inary *andatory in5unction directin 'E4ecuti/ecretary and the +"! #hair*an(, their successors, representati$es and any o$ern*ent office@aactin for an in their behalf or in i*ple*entation of their orders earlier en5oined by a &rit of preli*inain5unction issued by this court on /epte*ber >0, 1-, to issue the necessary authority, licenses an&or3in per*its to % % % "ssociated .e$elop*ent #orporation, and its personnel and players 'ollo, 216)217(%

ey prayed that the trial court be en5oined fro* conductin further proceedins in #i$il #ase o% -)7166 and that said cdis*issed% they also filed a *otion for consolidation of +%R% o% 11726> &ith +%R% o% 110-- '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo, )160(% "s prayed for, &e considered the t&o cases toether%

heir petition in +%R% o% 11726>, E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and #hair*an #epeda clai*ed that ".# had no clear rissuance of the preli*inary *andatory in5unction because, ollo# pp% 192)19(%

o$e*ber 2, 1-, ".# and Jude Reyes filed their consolidated #o**ent to the petition and supple*ental petition '+11726>, ollo, pp% 2>0)>0(%

o$e*ber 2, 1-, the Republic, E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and +"! #hair*an #epeda *o$ed for the issuance trainin order en5oinin Jude Pacuin and Jude Reyes fro* enforcin their uestioned orders and ".# fro* operatalai fronton '+%R% o% 1726>, ollo, pp% 62)6>(% "ction on the *otion deferred%

R% o% 110--tion for Cnter$ention

e Republic of the Philippines 'Republic( represented by +"! 5ustifies its belated inter$ention in +%R% o% 110-- on theunds that it has an interest in$ol$ed in this case and &ill be affected by the .ecision dated /epte*ber 1, 1- '+%R%

0--, ollo, p% 22(%

e purpose of its inter$ention is to nullify the decision of Jude "uusto E% Aillarin of the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch -0,nila, dated /epte*ber 1, 1- '+%R% o% 110--, ollo# p% 22(%

e purpose of its inter$ention is to nullify the decision of Jude "uusto E% Aillarin of the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch -0,nila, dated /epte*ber , 19 in #i$il #ase o% 99)-660, &hich upheld the $alidity of =rdinance o% 706 of the #ity onila rantin ".# a franchise to operate a 5ai)alai fronton% Mayor +e*iliano ;opeG appealed said decision to the #ourt opeals, but on February , 19, he filed a ?ithdra&al of "ppeal% The #ourt of "ppeals appro$ed the &ithdra&al in a resoed May , 19% "n entry of 5ud*ent &as *ade by the court of "ppeals on May 26, 19 and by the Reional Trial #ounch -0, Manila, on =ctober 27, 12%

1, the #ity of Manila filed an action to annul the franchise of ".# &ith the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch 2>, Manila '#se o% 1)91>(% The co*plaint &as dis*issed on .ece*ber 21, 11% o appeal &as ta3en fro* said dis*issal of thee%

e #ity of Manila filed &ith this #ourt a petition for declaratory 5ud*ent to nullify the franchise of ".# '+%R% o% 101769(tion &as dis*issed in a resolution dated =ctober >, 11 for lac3 of 5urisdiction%

ee *e*bers of the /anunian Panlunsod of Manila also filed &ith the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch >7, Manila, a peo*pel Mayor ;opeG to cancel the per*it and license he issued in fa$or of ".# pursuant to ordinance o% 706 '#i$il #1)9>0(% The petition &as dis*issed on June -, 12% o appeal &as ta3en fro* said dis*issal of the case%

he Motion for Reconsideration)Cn)Cnter$ention, /upple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)in)Cnter$ention and /econd

pple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)in)Cnter$ention, the Republic *erely clai*ed that =rdinance o% 706 had beenealed by P%.% o% 771 'ollo# pp% 229)2-9(, that the authority to issue per*its and licenses for the operation of 5ai)alai hn transferred to +"! by E%=% o% >2 of President Nuirino effecti$e July 1, 11 and that ".# &as ne$er issued a fran

#onress 'ollo, pp% >9>)>0(% o&here in its pleadins did the Republic point out &here the first .i$ision erred in resot&o rounds of the petition for certiorari in +%R% o% 110--,ch &ere /#R" 72 '199(, the #ourt held8D Pro$incial +o$ern*

/orsoon $% /ta*atela3y, 6 Phil% 206 1>78(% The period of trial ter*inates &hen the period of 5ud*ent beins 'El :opino $% Philippine ational !an3, 6- Phil% 92 1>78(%

r$ention as an action is not co*pulsory% "s deduced fro* the per*issi$e &ord *ay in the rule, the a$ail*ent of the reiscretionary on the courts '+arcia $% .a$id, 67 Phil% 27 1>8(% an i*portant factor ta3en into consideration by the courrcisin their discretion is &hether the inter$enorBs rihts *ay be fully protected in a separate proceedin 'Peyer $% MartiPhil% 72 118(%

e case of Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, > /#R" 2>9 '17(, can not, ser$e as authority in support of the Repur$ention at this late stae% &hile said case in$ol$ed an inter$ention for the first ti*e in the /upre*e court, the *otion to &ed to inter$ene &as filed before the appeal could be decided on the *erits% The inter$ention allo&ed in epublic v.

ndiganbayan, +%R% o% 607>, Resolution, March >, 12, &as also *ade before the decision on the *erits by this #ourtrast, the inter$ention of the Republic &as souht after this #ourt had decided the petition in +%R% o% 110-- and petiti co*plied &ith and satisfied the 5ud*ent% ?hile the inter$ention in .irector of ;ands &as in a case that &as ti*ely app

* the Reional Trial #ourt to the #ourt of "ppeals and fro* the #ourt of "ppeals to the /upre*e #ourt, the inter$entionpublic &as in a case that had beco*e final and e4ecutory *ore than fi$e years prior to the filin of the *otion to inter$en

of /epte*ber 16, 1-, therefore, &hen the republic *o$ed to inter$ene, there &as no loner any pendin litiation bet


23/69

parties in +%R% no% 110--% Cnter$ention is an au4iliary and supple*ental re*edy to an e4istin, not a settled litiation 'creGa $% Rosales, 2 /#R" - 1618(% "n inter$ention &as disallo&ed in a case &hich has beco*es final and e4ecutory

Manila Pencil #o%, 77 /#R" 191 1778(

e case of $uson v. Court of Appeals, 172 /#R" 70 '19( in$o3ed by the Republic '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% 17)19

ppropriate because the inter$ention therein &as before the trial court, not in this #ourt%

s Reply, the Republic ad*itted that the First .i$ision only ruled on the procedural issues raised in the petition and not ostitutionality of P%.% o% 771% Ct e$en ured that +"! &as not a party to the case and therefore &as not bound by)illarin decision because under /ection - of Rule >, a 5ud*ent is conclusi$e only bet&een the parties and theircessor)in)interest by title subseuent to the co**ence*ent of the action or special proceedin, litiatin for the sa*e t under the sa*e title and in the sa*e capacity 'ollo, pp% 229)2>-, ->1(%

h *ore reason then that the Republic should ha$e $entilated its clai* aainst ".# in a separate proceedin%

tly, an inter$enor should not be per*itted to 5ust sit idly and &atch the passin scene as an uninterested o$erloo3er befo3es up to see3 5udicial relief 'Pacursa $% .el Rosario, 2- /#R" 12 1698(%

e =ffice of the President &as a&are of the plans of ".# to start operation as early as 199% =n May , 199, ".# infor*d =ffice of its intention to operate under =rdinance o% 706% The said =ffice perfuntorily referred the letter of ".# to thnila *ayor, i*plyin that the *atter &as not the concern of the ational +o$ern*ent%

tion qua ;uo 2 in 11 and by R%"% o% - in 1- and that assu*in the issuance of the fran

".# in 171 under =rdinance o% 706 &as $alid, such franchise, toether &ith &hate$er authority of the #ity of Manila

nt the sa*e, &as $oided by P%.% o% 771 in 17%

he case of $tone v. $tate of *ississippi, 101 H%/% 91-, cited by the Republic, the /tate "ttorney +eneral resorted to a qrranto proceedin to uestion the authority of petitioner therein to operate and *aintain a a*blin establish*ent%

e franchise of ".# ranted by the #ity of Manila under =rdinance o% 706 reads as follo&s2 or under P%.% o% 771 % % % 'ollo,(%

certain, E%=% o% >2 *erely reoraniGed the different depart*ents, bureaus, offices and aencies of the o$ern*ent% bsolutely nothin in the e4ecuti$e issuances &hich $ests on +"! the po&er to rant, *uch less re$o3e, franchisers torate 5ai)alais%

"fter its volte4face, the Republic ne4t clai*s that R%"% o% - had repealed /ection 19 '55( and that after the effecti$ity o, only #onress could rant franchise to operate 5ai)alais%

ction - of R%"% o% - pro$ides8(%

he sa*e absence of an e4press repeal, a subseuent la& cannot be construed as repealin a prior la& unless anconcilable inconsistency and repunancy e4ist in the ter*s of the ne& and old la& 'Cloilo Palay and #orn Planters "ssoc$% Feliciano, 1> /#R" >77 168(%

*ore i*portantly, the rule in leal her*eneutics is that a special la&, li3e the #harter of the #ity of Manila, is not dee*e


26/69

ealed by a eneral la&, li3e R%"% o% - '#o**issioner of Cnternal Re$enue $% #ourt of "ppeals, 207 /#R" -97 12

&ay also, =rdinance o% 706 can be considered a leislati$e franchise &ithin the pur$ie& of R%"% o% -, ha$in bcted by the Municipal !oard of the #ity of Manila pursuant to the po&ers deleated to it by the leislature% " rant, unde

eated authority, binds the public and is considered the act of the state% The franchise ranted by the deleate8 is a

slati$e rant, &hether *ade directly by the leislature itself or by any one of its properly constituted instru*entalities '>2d% 7>-(%

held in $iolated the eual protection clause '/ection 1 of "rticle CA( of the 17> #onstitution, &hich pro$ided of P%.% o% 771 and any leiti*ate ends of o$ern*ent intended to be achie$ed by

uances% !esides, the rant of a franchise to PJ"# e4posed P%.% o% 771 as an e4ercise of arbitrary po&er to di$est ".#perty rihts%

ction > also $iolated /ection 1 of "rticle ACCC of the 17> #onstitution, &hich pro$ided 18(% " franchise is not re$ocable at the &ill of the rantor after contractual or property rihts thereunder ha$eo*e $ested in the rantee, in the absence of any pro$ision therefor in the rant or in the eneral la& '+rand Trun3 ?es

#o% $% /outh !end, 227 H%/% --(%


28/69

The Republic hypothesiGed that the said #onstitutional uarantees presuppose the e4istence of a contract or property rior of ".#% Ct clai*s that =rdinance o% 706 is not a franchise nor is it a contract but *erely a pri$ilee for the purpose ulation%

inance o% 706 is not *erely a personal pri$ilee that can be &ithdra&n at any ti*e% Ct is a franchise that is protected b

nstitution%

e distinction bet&een the t&o is that a pri$ilee is besto&ed out of pure beneficence on the part of the o$ern*ent% Theration or burden i*posed on the rantee e4cept *aybe to pay the ordinary license and per*it fees% Cn a franchise, thertain obliations assu*ed by the rantee &hich *a3e up the $aluable consideration for the contract% That is &hy the ranreuired to sinify his acceptance of the ter*s and conditions of the rant% =nce the rantee accepts the ter*s andditions thereof, the rant beco*es a bindin contract bet&een the rantor and the rantee%

other test used to distinuish a franchise fro* a pri$ilee is the bi in$est*ent ris3ed by the rantee% Cn (apa v. $antiagra, &e held that this factor should be considered in fa$or of the rantee% " franchise in &hich *oney has been e4pendeu*es the character of a $ested riht '!raGosport /a$ins and ;oan "ssociation $% "*erican /a$ins and ;oan "ssociaTe4% ->, >-2 /%?% 2d% 7-7(%

e cases cited by the Republic to the effect that a*blin per*its or license issued by *unicipalities can be re$o3ed &helic interest so reuires, ha$e ne$er addressed this issue, ob$iously because there &ere no sinificant financial in$est*e

ol$ed in the operation of the per*its or licenses%

assu*in that =rdinance o% 706 is a *ere pri$ilee, still o$er the years, the concept of a pri$ilee has chaned% Hndditional for* a property o&nership, recipients of pri$ilees, benefits or laresse fro* the o$ern*ent *ay be said to ha$perty rihts because they ha$e no traditionally reconiGed proprietary interest therein% The case of )inco v. *unicipality igaran, -1 Phil% 70 '117( and (edro v. (rovincial Board of i2al, 6 Phil 12> '1>1(, holdin that a license to operate3pits is a *ere pri$ilee, belon to this $intae% :o&e$er, the riht)pri$ilee dichoto*y has co*e to an end &hen the coe realiGed that indi$iduals should not be sub5ected to the unfettered &hi*s of o$ern*ent officials to &ithhold pri$ilees$iously i$en the* 'Aan "lstyne, ,he Demise of the ight = (rivilege Distinctionin Constitutional Law, 91 :ar$ard ;% R

698(% To perpetuate such distinction &ould lea$e *any indi$iduals at the *ercy of o$ern*ent officials and threaten therties protected by the !ill of Rihts 'o&a3, Rotunda and oun, #onstitutional ;a& -6 2nd ed8(%

at a franchise is sub5ect to reulation by the state by $irtue of its police po&er is conceded% ?hat is not acceptable is thepublicBs proposition that the po&er to reulate and super$ise includes the po&er to cancel the franchise altoether%

e stance of the Republic that the a*blin franchises it issues are not co$ered by the constitutional *antle protectin prts is ill)ad$ised considerin that it is plannin to operate a*blin establish*ents in$ol$in substantial forein in$est*etin up the facilities thereof%

e belabored aru*ents of the Republic on the e$ils of a*blin fall to the round upon a sho&in that ".# is operatin e4istin and $alid franchise 'ollo, pp% -22)-2>(%

The Republic uestioned the sitin of the ".#Bs fronton as $iolati$e of E%=% o% 1> of President Nuirino% Hnder saidcuti$e issuance, no pelota fronton can be *aintained and operated &ithin a radius of 200 lineal *eters fro* any city hanicipal buildin, pro$incial capital buildin, national capital buildin, public plaGa or par3, public school, church, hospital,etic stadiu*, or any institution of learnin or charity%

cordin to the certificate issued by the ational Mappin Cnfor*ation "uthority, the ".# fronton is &ithin the proscribed r* the #entral !an3 of the Philippines, the RiGal /tadiu*, the Manila Ooo, the public par3 or plaGa in front of the Goo, the


29/69

pital n Maynila, a police precinct and a church '+%R% o% 110--, ollo, pp% -2-)-27(%

the other hand, a certificate issued by the =fficer)in)chare of the =ffice of the #ity Enineer of the #ity of Manila attestfact that not one of the buildins or places *entioned in the certificate sub*itted by the Republic is &ithin the 200)*eteal distance, center to center fro* the ".#Bs 5ai)alai buildin 'ollo, p% 260(% :o& this $ariance in *easure*ent ca*e

*atter that should ha$e been sub*itted before the trial court for deter*ination%

&e$er, the operati$e la& on the sitin of 5ai)alai establish*ents is no loner E%=% o% 1> of President Nuirino but R%"% as a*ended by R%"% o% 122-%

der said la& only niht clubs, cabarets, pa$illions, or other si*ilar places are co$ered by the 200)lineal *eter radius% Cn te of all other places of a*use*ents e4cept coc3pits, the proscribed radial distance has been reduced to 0 *eters% ?itpect to coc3pits, the deter*ination of the radial distance is left to the discretion of the *unicipal council or city board '/e

The Republic also uestions the lac3 of the period of the rant under =rdinance o% 706, thus *a3in it indeter*inate '11726>, ollo, pp% 00)0(% The ordinance lea$es it to the Mayor of the #ity of Manila to lay do&n other ter*s andditions of the rant in addition to those specified therein% Ct is up to the parties to aree on the life or ter* of the rant% Cn

parties fail to reach an aree*ent on the ter*, the sa*e can be fi4ed by the courts under "rticle 117 of the #i$il #odeippines, &hich pro$ides as follo&s

e petition in +%R% o% 11726> see3s to nullify the follo&in orders of respondent Jude Reyes( respondent 5ude pre)e*pted this #ourt in resol$in the basic issues raised in +%R% o% 110-- &hen he too3niGance of #i$il #ase o% -)7166%


30/69

"t the outset, it should be *ade clear that /ection 7 of Rule 22 of the Re$ised Rules of #ourt does not reuire that thein*ent of cases to the different branches of a trial court should al&ays be by raffle% The Rule tal3s of assin*ent &heraffle or other&ise% ?hat it reuires is the i$in of &ritten notice to counsel or the parties so that they *ay be presentrein if they so desire%

ction 7 of Rule 22 pro$ides, 7> ;% Ed% 72, - /% #t% 26D +obbi $% .ilao, 9 =r% 1-, 111 p%, p% 7(% ?hat is intended to be preser$ed is the status quo ante litem motamor the last actual, peaceable, noncontesteus '"nnotation, 1 ";R 2d 2>7(%

he case at bench, the status quo&hich the uestioned orders of Jude Reyes souht to *aintain &as that ".# &asratin the 5ai)alai pursuant to =rdinance o% 706 of the #ity of Manila, the $arious decisions of the different courts, inc


31/69

/upre*e #ourt, and the licenses, per*its and pro$isional authority issued by +"! itself%

i*es, it *ay be necessary for the courts to ta3e so*e affir*ati$e act essential to restore the status quo'Co&a aturalsources #ouncil $% Aan /ee Co&a8 19 %?% 2d% 111(%

e riht to conduct a business or to pursue oneBs business or trade &ithout &ronful interference by others is a property rch euity &ill, in proper cases, protect by in5unction, pro$ided of course, that such occupation or $ocation is leal and nohibited by la& 'Rance $% /perry :utchinson #o%, -10 P% 2d 9(%

d not the .irecti$e to close the operation of ".#Bs 5ai)alai and the i*ple*entin Me*orandu* been issued, there &ouldn no need for the issuance of the orders of the Reional Trial #ourt% The need for said euitable reliefs beco*es *ore

dent if &e consider that the E4ecuti$e /ecretary hi*self had entertained doubts as to the leality of his action because i*e .irecti$e he instructed the /olicitor +eneral to obtain a 5udicial rulin on the leal issues raised%

Respondent Jude Reyes did not pre)e*pt this #ourt in decidin the basic issues raised in +%R% o% 110-- &hen it asssdiction o$er #i$il #ase o% -)7166 and issued the orders uestioned in +%R% o% 11726>%

e orders of Jude Reyes are pro$isional in nature and do not touch on the *erits of the case% The issues raised in #i$il #-)7166 are the $alidity of the .irecti$e and Me*orandu*, &hich &ere issued after the decision of this #ourt in +%R% 0--% The respondent in the ci$il case before the trial court are not e$en parties in +%R% o% 110--%

NO, J., dissentin-- 1798D +alan $% Endencia, 7> Phil% >1 1-18%

The issue on the cancellation of =rdinance o% 706 by president Marcos could ha$e been raised aspecial defense in #i$il #ase o% 99)-660 but &as not % % %

The #ity of Manila should ha$e pursued in the appellate courts its appeal uestionin the dis*issal #i$il #ase o% 1)91>, &here the trial court ruled that Mayor ;opeG and the city could no loner cthat =rdinance o% 706 had been cancelled by president Marcos because they failed to raise this iin #i$il #ase o% 99)-660%

"t any rate, the unilateral cancellation of the franchise, &hich has the status of a contract, &ithout nhearin and 5ustifiable cause is intolerable in any syste* &here the rule of ;a& pre$ails 'Poses $% TTransportation #o%, 62 Phil% 27 1>8D Manila electric #o%, $% Public utility co**issioners, >0 Phil% 118%

on its receipt, Mayor ;i* *anifested he &ould co*ply &ith the .ecision% :e did not file a *otion for reconsideration% it &n that the Republic started its o&n leal battle aainst ".#% it inter$ened in +%R% o% 110--, raisin se$eral issues,ecially ".#Bs lac3 of a $alid leislati$e franchise to operate 5ai)alai% o less than E4ecuti$e /ecretary Teofisto +uinonacted the +a*es and "*use*ent !oard, then headed by Mr% Francisco R% /u*ulon, 5r%, to hold in abeyance the rant hority, or if any had been issued, to &ithdra& such rant of authority in fa$or of ".#% The +"! dutifully ordered ".# to desist fro* operatin the Manila 5ai)alai% ".# aain rushed to the RT# of Manila and filed #i$il #ase o% -)7166 &h

s raffled to !r% 1-, presided by respondent Jude Aetino Reyes% "ctin &ith dispatch, respondent 5ude te*porarily restr+"! fro* &ithdra&in the pro$isional authority of ".# to operate% "fter hearin, the te*porary restrainin order &as$erted into &rits of preli*inary in5unction and preli*inary *andatory in5unction upon postin by ".# of a P2 *illion bonse &rits are challened in these consolidated petitions as ha$in been issued in ra$e abuse of discretion a*ountin tourisdiction%

ile the petitions at bench are chec3ered &ith sinificant substanti$e and procedural issues, C &ill only address the content ".# has no e4istin leislati$e franchise% The contention is anchored on t&o '2( sub*issions< first, ".# has no leislanchise as reuired by R%"% o% -, and second, e$en if the city of Manila licensed ".# to operate 5ai)alai, its authority &ertheless re$o3ed by section > of P%.% o% 771%

d as co*pletely baseless petitionersB sub*ission that R%"% o% - reuires a leislati$e franchise to operate a 5ai)alai, ct, re$o3in the po&er of the #ity of Manila to issue per*its for the sa*e purpose as ranted by its #harter% " 20)20 $isdin of R%"% o% - &ill not yield the suested interpretation by petitioners% the titles of R%"% o% - &ill i**ediately rt the la& &as enacted to achie$e a special purpose% Ct states< An Act ,o (rohibit Certain ActivitiesCn #onnection ?ith :ces "nd !asue pelota +a*es 'Jai)"lai(, "nd To Prescribe Penalties For its Aiolation% Theprohibited activities related ta*es are specified in sections - to 6, vi2boo'ies> in connection with the holding of hraces or >basque pelota> games% The ter* boo3ie as co**only understood refers to a person, &h&ithout any license therefor, operates outside the co*pounds of racin clubs and accepts bets fro*public% They pay di$idends to &inners *inus a co**ission, &hich is usually 10% Prosecutions of spersons ha$e been instituted under "ct o% -2-0 &hich &as enacted in 1>% :o&e$er, in a recentopinion released by the #ity Fiscal of Manila he *aintains that "ct o% -2-0 has already been repeaso that the present la& reulatin ordinary horse races per*its boo3ies to ply their trade, but not os&eepsta3es races and other races held for charitable purposes% ?ith the operation of boo3in plathe #ity of Manila, the +o$ern*ent has been losin no less than P600,000%00 a year, &hich a*ounrepresents the ta4 that should ha$e been collected fro* bets *ade in such places% for these reasonappro$al of the bill is earnestly reco**ended%

said E4planatory ote is e4pressi$e of the purpose of the bill, it i$es a reliable 3eyhole on the scope and co$erae of R-%5othin fro* the E4planatory ote re*otely suests any intent of the la& to re$o3e the po&er of the #ity of Manila to*its to operate 5ai)alai a*es &ithin its territorial 5urisdiction%

e .ebatesin #onress li3e&ise re5ect the readin of R%"% o% - by petitioners, thus of P%.% o% 771 &hich re$o3ed all e4istin franchises and per*its is, ho&e$er,stitutionally i*per*issible% =n its face, section > purports to re$o3e all e4istin franchises and per*its% .urin the oralu*ent of the petitions at bench, ho&e$er, it &as ad*ittedt at the ti*e P%.% o% 771 &as enacted, only ".# is actually operatin a 5ai)alai% 1The purported re$ocation of allfranchise*its &hen there &as only one e4istin per*it at that ti*e is an un*ista3eable atte*pt to *as3 the la& &ith i*partiality% o oth*it &as affected by said sec% > e4cept ".#%

th, ho&e$er, has its o&n ti*e of sproutin out% The truth behind the re$ocation of ".#Bs franchise re$ealed itself &hen fosident Marcos transferred ".#Bs franchise to the Philippine Jai)"lai and "*use*ents #orporation then under the controbrother)in)la&, Mr% "lfredo !e5o Ro*ualdeG% The fa$ored treat*ent &as e4tended hardly t&o '2( *onths after the re$o

".#Bs franchise and it left Philippine Jai)"lai and "*use*ents #orporation the sole5ai)alai operator in the Philippines% Turt is not infor*ed of any distinction of PJ"# that &ill 5ustify its different treat*ent% The e$idence is thus clear and theclusion is irresistable that section > of (.D. "o. 0 was designed with a malignant eye against ADC%

ht of the established facts in field, section > of P%.% o% 771 *ust be struc3 do&n as constitutionally infir*ed% despite it*etics, section > cannot be unblushinly foisted as a *easure that &ill pro*ote the public &elfare% There is no &ay to t


37/69

self)interest of a fa$ored entity as identical &ith the eneral interest of a fa$ored entity as identical &ith the eneral inteFilipino people% Ct &ill also be repulsi$e to reason to entertain the thesis that the re$ocation of the franchise of ".# issonably necessary to enable the /tate to rapple to the round the e$il of 5ai)alai as a for* of a*blin% Petitioners ha$

*onstrated that o$ern*ent lac3s alternative optionsto succeed in its effort e4cept to cancel the lone franchise of ".#% tress, it is not the lofty ai* of P%.% o% 771 to co*pletely eradicate 5ai)alai a*esD it *erely see3s to control its *ultiplica

restorin the *onopoly of the national o$ern*ent in the dispensation of franchises%

scindin fro* these pre*ises, C share the scholarly $ie& of Mr% Justice Nuiason that sec% > of P%.% o% 771 offends thenstitution &hich de*ands faithful co*pliance &ith the reuire*ents of substanti$e due process, eual protection of the la non)i*pair*ent of contracts% capsuliGin their essence, substanti$e due process e4acts fairnessD eual protection disainction to the distinctlessD and the uaranty of non)i*pair*ent of contract protects its interity unless de*anded other&public ood% #onstitutionalis* esche&s the e4ercise of unchec3ed po&er for history de*onstrates that a *eanderin,less po&er ulti*ately tears apart the social fabric of society% Thus, the rant of police po&er to pro*ote public &elfare cry &ith it the pri$ilee to be oppressi$e% The #onstitution ordained the /tate not 5ust to achie$e order or liberty but toin ordered liberty, ho&e$er elusi$e the balance *ay be% #oniGant of the truis* that in life the only constant is chane,

nstitution did not desin that the point that can stri3e the balance bet&een order and liberty should be static for preciselycess of ad5ustin the *o$in point of the balance i$es o$ern*ent reater elasticity to *eet the needs of the ti*e%

also *y respectful sub*ission that the unconstitutionality of section > of P%.% o% 771 &as not cured &hen for*er Presuino used it in re$o3in P%.% o% 910 &hich ranted Philippine Jai)"lai and "*use*ents #orporation a franchise to oper

in Manila% The subseuent use of said section should not obfuscate the fact that the la& &as enacted in the &ronfulrcise of the police po&er of the /tate% There is no sidesteppin the truth that its enact*ent inflicted undue in5ury on the

".# and there can be no reparation of these rihts until and unless its per*it to continue operatin 5ai)alai in Manila istored% #ancellin the franchise of Philippine Jai)"lai and "*use*ents #orporation is an act of Justice to ".# if its franculd be left unreconiGed% /ince the unconstitutionalityof section > is conenital, it is beyond rede*ption%

&hile C &holeheartedly subscribe to the *any i*peccable theses of Mr% Justice Nuiason, it is &ith reret that C cannot 5o*ittal that sec% > of P%.% o% 771 $iolatesproceduraldue process% ?e are dealin &ith the plenary po&er of the leislat3e and a*end la&s% #onress has pre$iously deleated to the #ity of Manila the po&er to rant per*its to operate 5ai)ahin its territorial 5urisdiction and ".#Bs per*it could ha$e been $alidly re$o3ed by la& if it &ere de*onstrated that its

ocation &as called for by the public ood and is not capricious% Cn ascertainin the public ood for the purpose of enacti*edial la&, it is not indispensable, albeit so*eti*es desirable, to i$e notice and hearin to an affected party% The data th

slature see3s &hen enaed in la&*a3in does not focus on the liability of a person or entity &hich &ould reuire fair hhe latterBs side% Cn fine, the leislature &hile *a3in la&s is not in$ol$ed in establishin e$idence that &ill con$ict, but inarthin neutral data that &ill direct its discretion in deter*inin the eneral ood%

e suested notice and hearin before a franchise can be cancelled has another undesirable di*ension% Ct does not onlyuly cra*p the leislature in its *ethod of data)atherin, it also burdens the leislature &ith too *uch encu*brance in trcise of its police po&er to reulate a*blin% :o&e$er hea$ily laden &ith property rihts a franchise to operate 5ai)alaiybe, it is still a contract &hich under appropriate circu*stances can be re$o3ed to enhance public interest% Jai)alai *ay

*e of a thousand thrills but its true thrill co*es fro* the a*blin on its indeter*inate result% !eyond debate, a*blin ie$en if its ad$ocates bleach its nefariousness by upradin it as a necessary e$il% Cn a country &here it is a policy to pro

youthBs physical, *oral, spiritual, intellectual, and social &ell)bein,17

there is no riht to a*ble, neither a riht to pro*ote*blin for a*blin is contra bonos mores% To reuire the leislature to strictly obser$e procedural before it can re$o3e a a*b

process before it can re$o3e a a*blin franchise is to put too *uch pri*acy on property rihts% ?e then stand in daner of$in the lon la*ented 10 rulin in Lochner v. "ew ?or' 1&hich un&isely struc3 do&n o$ern*ent interference in contractrty% The spirit of liberalis* &hich pro$ides the *ain dri$in force of social 5ustice rebels aainst the resuscitation of then Lochnerfro* its sarcophaus% ?e should not be seduced by any 5udicial acti$is* unduly fa$orin pri$ate econo*ic interese4pense of the public ood%

so support the stance of Mr% Justice Nuiason &hich resisted the stance that the #ourt should close its eyes to alleation


38/69

tion > of P%.% o% 771 &as concei$ed and effected to i$e na3ed preference to a fa$ored entity due to pediree% C reitera& that section 1, "rticle ACCC of the #onstitution e4pandin the 5urisdiction of this #ourt to deter*ine &hether or not there n a ra$e abuse of discretion a*ountin to lac3 or e4cess of 5urisdiction on the part of any branch or aency of o$ern*a pointless postulate% ?ithout the rant of this ne& po&er, it &ould be difficult, if not i*possible, to pierce throuh thetentious purposes of P%.% o% 771% P%.% o% 771 has no riht to a re$erential treat*ent for it is not a real la& as it is not t

duct of an authentic deliberati$e leislature% Rather, it is the dictate of a public official &ho then had a *onopoly of e4ec leislati$e po&ers% "s it &as not infreuently done at that ti*e, the &hereas clauses of la&s used to ca*ouflae a pri$apose by the in$ocation of public &elfare% The traedy is that the bous in$ocation of public &elfare succeeded partly dueindefensible deference i$en to official acts of o$ern*ent% The ne& #onstitution no& calls for a heihtened 5udicial scrfficial acts% For this purpose, it has e4tirpated e$en the colonial roots of our i*potence% Ct is ti*e to respond to this call &her a pause nor a half)pause%

erefore $ote to declare section > of P%.% o% 771 unconstitutional and to dis*iss the petitions%

'ara( O'#n#on%

PUNAN,J., concurrin, 1-, E4ecuti$e /ecretary Teofisto +uinona directed +"! #hair*an /u*ulon to hold in abeyance thnt of authority or if any has been issued, to &ithdra& such rant of authority1to the ".#% #onseuently, on /epte*ber 1--, the +"! #hair*an re$o3ed the pro$isional authority issued by his office, until the leal issues raised in the /epte*ber 1>cti$e of the E4ecuti$e /ecretary are resol$ed in the proper court% /aid directi$e identified the leal issues as centerin on 1( thstitutionality of P%.% 771D 2( the $alidity of the apparent rant in perpetuity of a *unicipal franchise to *aintain 5ai)alai operatio, >( the po&er of the city of Manila to issue a 5ai)alai franchise in $ie& of E4ecuti$e =rder >2 &hich transferred fro* localern*ents to the +"! the po&er to reulate 5ai)alai%

actin to the cancellation of its pro$isional authority to *aintain 5ai)alai operations, ".#, on /epte*ber 1, 1- filed a


39/69

tion for prohibition, mandamus, in5unction and da*aes &ith prayer for te*porary restrainin order and &rit of preli*inanction in the Manila Reional Trial #ourt of aainst E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and #hair*an /u*ulon% The Reio

al court of *anila, !ranch -, throuh Jude Aetino Reyes on the sa*e day issued an order en5oinin the E4ecuti$e /ecr the +"! #hair*an fro* i*ple*entin their directi$e and *e*orandu*, respecti$ely%

/epte*ber 16, 1- +"!, representin the Republic of the Philippines, filed a *otion for inter$ention, for lea$e to file ation for reconsideration)in)inter$ention and for reference of the case to the #ourt en banc in +%R% o% 110--% "ctin ontion, the First .i$ision referred the case to the #ourt en banc, &hich, in a resolution dated 20 /epte*ber 1-, accepted

*e and reuired the respondents therein to co**ent%

=ctober 11, 1- the E4ecuti$e /ecretary and the ne& +"! #hair*an .o*ino #epeda, Jr% filed &ith this #ourt a petitcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailin Jude Aetino ReyesB earlier order%

=ctober 1% 1-, Jude Reyes issued another order rantin the ".!Bs *otion for a &rit of preli*inarymandatory in5uinst the E4ecuti$e /ecretary and the +"! #hair*an and to co*pel the* to issue the necessary authority, licenses and3in per*its to the ".#, its personnel and players%

e o$ern*ent souht lea$e to file a supple*ental petition 'and to ad*it attached supple*ental petition( &ith urent prayestrainin order assailin the =ctober 1, 1- =rder of Jude Reyes% ?e ranted lea$e to file said supple*ental petitiod*it supple*ental petition and reuired respondents therein to file their co**ent on =ctober 2, 1-%

e ".# *aintains it oriinal position that =rdinance o% 706, enacted pursuant to the #harter of the #ity of Manila undepublic "ct o% -0 ranted a $alid and subsistin municipal franchise for the operation of the !asue pelota a*e 5ai alaponse to the o$ern*entBs $ehe*ent ob5ections aainst ".#Bs operation of its a*blin operations 2the ".# for the firstllened the constitutional $alidity of P%.% o% 771 insofar as it re$o3ed the authority ranted to it by =rdinance o% 706 as $iohe non)i*pair*ent of contracts and eual protection clauses of the constitution% =rdinance 706 reads% .eclarin that the ".# does not possess the reuired leislati$e franchise to operate the 5ai)alai R%"% - and P%.% 771%

-% /ettin aside the &rits of preli*inary in5unction and preli*inary *andatory in5unction issued by JuAetino Reyes%

"!E, JR., J., concurrin, &hether public respondent Jude Aetino Reyes acted &ith ra$e abuse o

cretion in issuin the te*porary restrainin order and subseuently the &rit of preli*inary *andatory in5unction in #i$il c-)7166%

to the first issue, C sub*it that unless &e either a*end the rule on inter$ention or suspend it, the *otion to inter$ene *u


42/69

ied% Hnder /ection 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of #ourt, such *otion *ay be allo&ed onlybefore or during a trial% /aid sectds-,

The herein *o$ants, +reenfield .e$elop*ent #orporation, "laban .e$elop*ent #orporation, Ra*!aatsin, and all buyers fro* the*, at least those &ith ostensible proprietary interests as theMER";#=, "laban :ills /ubdi$ision, #ielito :o*es /ubdi$ision, Tahanan Aillae, the Ministry of

:ih&ays insofar as the /outh /uper :ih&ay is affected, are indispensable parties to these proceeas it has been sho&n affir*ati$ely that they ha$e such an interest in the contro$ersy or sub5ect *atta final ad5udication cannot be *ade, in their absence, &ithout in5urin or affectin such interest% The

5oinder *ust be ordered in order to pre$ent *ultiplicity of suits, so that the &hole *atter in dispute *deter*ined once and for all in one litiation%

d, suarely on the aspect of inter$ention, it found that the denial thereof

&ill lead the #ourt to co**it an act of in5ustice to the *o$ants, to their successors)in)interest and topurchasers for $alue and in ood faith and thereby open the door to fraud, falsehood and*isrepresentation, should inter$enorsB clai*s be pro$en to be true% For it cannot be ainsaid that if tpetition for reconstitution is finally ranted, the chaos and confusion arisin fro* a situation &here t

certificates of title of the *o$ants co$erin lare areas of land o$erlap or encroach on properties theto &hich is bein souht to be reconstituted by pri$ate respondent, &ho herself indicates in her =ppthat, accordin to the .irector of ;ands, the o$erlappin e*braces so*e 97 hectares only, is certainine$itable%

en too, it *ay be stressed that said case oriinated fro* a proceedin to reconstitute a certificate of title filed by pri$atepondent% "fter trial, the #ourt of First Cnstance issued an order denyin the petition for insufficiency of e$idence% "fter a ne& trial &as ranted and a hearin to recei$e the ne&ly disco$ered e$idence &as co*pleted, the court issued an ordeyin the reconstitution souht for as it still doubted the authenticity and enuineness of the Transfer of #ertificate of Titlht to be reconstituted% The pri$ate respondent appealed the order to the #ourt of "ppeals &hich thereafter pro*ulateision re$ersin the aforesaid orders of the trial court% The .irector of ;and, &hich &as the re*ainin oppositor, filed a *a ne& period to file a *otion for reconsideration of the decision allein e4cusable nelience% Pri$ate respondent filed osition thereto% ?ithout &aitin for the resolution of the *otion, the .irector filed a *otion to ad*it the *otion foronsideration attachin thereto said *otion for reconsideration% The #ourt of "ppeals issued a resolution denyin both *he round that the decision had already beco*e final% This &as the resolution &hich the .irector assailed in his petitione& filed &ith this #ourt%

nsiderin then that the inter$ention in the case at bar &as co**enced only after the decision had been e4ecuted, apension of the Rules to acco**odate the *otion for inter$ention and the inter$ention itself &ould be arbitrary% The$ern*ent is not &ithout any other recourse to protect any riht or interest &hich the decision *iht ha$e i*paired%

y the *otion to inter$ene and inter$ention proper be, ne$ertheless, treated as a petition for quo warrantoL The *a5oritynion ans&ers it in the affir*ati$e because all the essential reuisites for a petition for quo warrantoare present in saidadins% C a* al*ost te*pted to aree &ith that opinion if not for the fact that there is pendin before the Reional Trial #Manila #i$il #ase o% -)7166 &hich is a petition for prohibition, mandamus, in5unction, and da*aes filed by the "sso

$elop*ent #orporation aainst E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and then +a*es and "*use*ent !oard '+"!( #hair*a*ulon% That is the *ore appropriate foru* &here the +o$ern*ent and petitioner +uinona *ay challene the $alidity o#Bs franchise% Cts filin &as pro$o3ed by the &ithdra&al by the +"! of the pro$isional authority it ranted to ".# in $ie&/epte*ber 1- directi$e of E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona infor*in the +"! of sufficient bases to hold in abeyance thration of the 5ai)alai until the leal uestions into the $alidity of the franchise issued to ".#% #onseuently, it is to be losu*ed that for its affir*ati$e defenses in #i$il #ase o% -)7166 the +o$ern*ent &ould raise the sa*e issues raised r$ention in +%R% o% 11726>%


44/69

cordinly, C $ote to deny the *otion for inter$ention in +%R% o% 110--%

&e$er, C $ote to partially rant the petition in +%R% o% 11726> insofar as &aerin or bettin on the results order and thei*inary *andatory in5unction issued by respondent Jude cannot leally and $alidly allo& such &aerin and bettin% Ctcisely for this reason that C earlier $oted to rant a te*porary restrainin order in +%R% o% 110-- and +%R% o% 11726>train &aerin or bettin% C &ish to reiterate here &hat C stated in *y supple*ental concurrin opinion in +%R% o% 110-

/econdly, to *a3e *y position clear that the dis*issal of the petition should not be construed asco*pellin the #ity of Manila to authoriGe a*blin by allo&in bettin on the results of 5ai)alai% Thedecision *erely dis*issed the petition because the #ourt found no abuse of discretion, *uch lessof e4cess of 5urisdiction, on the part of the respondent 5ude in issuin the challened order directinpetitioner to issue a per*it or license in fa$or of the pri$ate respondent pursuant to =rdinance o% 7That order &as to enforce the final and e4ecutory decision of the Reional Trial #ourt of /epte*b199 in #i$il #ase o% 99)-660, the appeal therefro* to the #ourt of "ppeals by the #ity of Manilaha$in been &ithdra&n by it on February 19% That decision ordered the #ity of Manila to i**ed

issue to the pri$ate respondent the per*it@license reuired under =rdinance o% 706% The #ity ofManila did in fact issue the reuired per*it or license to the pri$ate respondent for the operation of talai in Manila for the years 199 to 12% e$ertheless, &hen the 5ai)alai co*ple4 &as al*ost co*pthe #ity Mayor refused to rene& the MayorBs Per*it%

There is a clear distinction bet&een the initial duty of the #ity Mayor under =rdinance o% 706 to isthe necessary license or per*it to establish the 5ai)alai fronton and to *aintain and operate the 5ai)aand his subseuent discretion to i*pose other ter*s and conditions for thefinal contractrelati$e to soperation% The trial court specifically said so in its decision of /epte*ber 19% Thus, &hich &as not repealed by P%.% o% 1602 since the for*er isinconsistent &ith the latter in that respect, bettin in

+ai4alaiis illeal unless allo&ed by la&% There &as such a la&% P%.% o% 910, &hich authoriGed thePhilippine -ai4Alaiand "*use*ent #orporation as follo&s and to set aside the uestioned te*porary restrainin order andof preli*inary *andatory in5unction but only to the e4tent that they allo& &aerin or bettin on the results of 5ai)alai%

"ASON, J., dissentin, ollo# pp% 0, 2>9, 29(%

o*pliance &ith +"! Rules and Reulations, ".# sub*itted its prora*s of 5ai)alai e$ents for appro$al 'E4hs% =, P and #ase o% -)7166, RT#, !r% -, ManilaD +%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% 20)22(%

ppears that as early as *ay 2>, 1-, Jai)"lai de Manila 'the business na*e of ".#Bs fronton( had inuired fro* +"! ala&s and rules o$ernin its 5ai)alai operation% Cn reply, chair*an /u*ulon furnished Jai)"lai de Manila &ith copies of

s% >2 and 92- and the Re$ised rules and Reulations for basue pelota +a*es 'E4hs% I and ;, #i$il #ase o% -)716

#, !r% -, ManilaD +%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% >01)>02(%

/epte*ber 1>, 1-, E4ecuti$e /ecretary Teofisto +uinona, 5r% issued the follo&in .irecti$e to +"! #hair*an /u*ul

Cn reply to your letter dated /epte*ber 1- reuestin for the PresidentBs appro$al to re)open th"lai in Manila, please be infor*ed that after a re$ie& and study of e4istin la&s, there is sufficient bhold in abeyance the operation of the Jai)"lai until the follo&in leal uestions are properly resol$e

1% ?hether P%.% 771 &hich re$o3ed all e4istin Jai)"lai franchises issued by localo$ern*ent as of 20 "uust 17 is unconstitutional%

2% "ssu*in that the #ity of Manila had the po&er on 7 /epte*ber 171 to issue a J

"lai franchise to "ssociated .e$elop*ent #orporation, &hether the franchise rante$alid considerin that the franchise has no duration, and appears to be ranted inperpetuity%

>% ?hether the #ity of Manila had the po&er to issue a Jai)"lai franchise to "ssociat.e$elop*ent #orporation on 7 /epte*ber 171 in $ie& of E4ecuti$e order o% >2 1 January 11 &hich transferred fro* local o$ern*ents to the +a*es and "*use!oard the po&er to reulate Jai)"lai%


48/69

,his 7ffice has directed the solicitor 5eneral to bring before the proper court the foregoing issues foresolution. (ending such resolution# you are directed to hold in abeyance the grant of authority# or ifhas been issued# to withdraw such grant of authority# to Associated Development corporation to opehe -ai4Alai in the city of *anila'+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 7)9, -9, 1>D Emphasis supplied8.

/epte*ber 1-, 1-, #hair*an /u*ulon issued a Me*orandu* to ".# that /epte*ber 1-, "ssociated.e$elop*ent #orporation is hereby ordered to cease and desist issues raised in the said directi$e aresol$ed by the proper court% ,he provisional authority issued pending further scrutiny and evaluatio

ADC on 6 $eptember 0669 is hereby withdrawn'+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 1, 1-D E*phasissupplied(%

/epte*ber 1, 1-, ".# filed &ith the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch -, Manila a petition for prohibition,mandamus, in5u da*aes &ith prayer for te*porary restrainin order or &rit of preli*inary in5unction '#ase o% -)7166( aainst E4ec

cretary +uinona and #hair*an /u*ulon assailin the for*erBs .irecti$e and the latterBs Me*orandu* '+%R% o%26>, ollo, pp% >, 20)21, >)7, 167)169(%

the sa*e day, Jude Aetino Reyes issued a te*porary restrainin order en5oinin E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona andair*an /u*ulon fro* i*ple*entin their respecti$e .irecti$e and *e*orandu* '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 2, 10, --

/epte*ber 16, 1-, E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and #hair*an /u*ulon filed an urent *otion to recall the te*potrainin order, &ith opposition to the *otion for issuance of a &rit of preli*inary in5unction% The said *otion &as reiteratesupple*ental *otion filed on /epte*ber 20, 1- '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% 66)7, 76)96(%

an&hile, on /epte*ber 16, 1-, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by +"!, filed in +%R% o% 110-- a *otior$entionD for lea$e to file a *otion for reconsideration)in)inter$entionD to ad*it the attached *otion for reconsideration)inr$entionD and to refer the case to the #ourt en banc 'ollo, pp% 21)2-(%

bseuently, and on the different dates, the Republic filed in +%R% o% 110-- the follo&in pleadins< Motion for ;ea$e tpple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)Cn)Cnter$ention 'ollo, pp% 262)26(D /upple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)r$ention 'ollo# pp% 266)290(D Motion for ;ea$e to File /econd /upple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)Cn)Cnter$enti

"d*it attached /econd /upple*ental Motion For Reconsideration)Cn)inter$ention :ollo, pp% >90)>92(D and /econdpple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)Cn)Cnter$ention 'ollo# pp% >9>)-00(%

n on the *otion of the Republic dated /epte*ber 16, 1-, the First .i$ision referred, in its Resolution dated /epte*1-, #ase +%R% o% 110-- to the #ourt en banc, and the latter accepted the sa*e in its Resolution dated /epte*ber- 'ollo# p% 2(%

he *eanti*e, #hair*an /u*ulon resined and .o*inador R% #epeda, 5r% &as appointed as his successor%

/epte*ber >0, 1-, Jude Reyes issued a &rit of preli*inary in5unction '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% 2, -7(%

=ctober 11, 1-, E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and +"! #hair*an #epeda, Jr% filed &ith this #ourt a petition for certhibition and mandamus '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo# pp% 1)11( and on =ctober 2-, 1-, a supple*ental petition '+%R% o26>, ollo, pp% 161)16, 166)>06(% Petitioners assailed the follo&in issuances of Jude Reyes #i$il #ase o% -)716

'1%( Te*porary Restrainin =rder dated /epte*ber 1, 1- directin E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinonchair*an /u*ulon to desist fro* enforcin the .irecti$e dated /epte*ber 1>, 1- and the


49/69

*e*orandu* dated /epte*ber 1, 1- 'ollo, p% --(D

'2%( =rder dated /epte*ber 2, 1- denyin the Hrent Motion to Recall Te*porary Restrainin =and the Hrent /upple*ental Motion to Recall Te*porary Restrainin =rder 'ollo, p% -6(D

'>%( =rder dated /epte*ber >0, 1- directin the issuance of a ?rit of preli*inary Cn5unction directaainst the aforesaid .irecti$e and Me*orandu* 'ollo, p% -7(D

'-%( order dated =ctober 1, 1- rantin ".#Bs Motion to "*end the petition to #onfor* to theE$idence and directin the issuance of a &rit of preli*inary *andatory in5unction directin 'E4ecuti/ecretary and the +"! #hair*an(, their successors, representati$es and any o$ern*ent office@aactin for an in their behalf or in i*ple*entation of their orders earlier en5oined by a &rit of preli*inain5unction issued by this court on /epte*ber >0, 1-, to issue the necessary authority, licenses an&or3in per*its to % % % "ssociated .e$elop*ent #orporation, and its personnel and players 'ollo, 216)217(%

ey prayed that the trial court be en5oined fro* conductin further proceedins in #i$il #ase o% -)7166 and that said c

dis*issed% they also filed a *otion for consolidation of +%R% o% 11726> &ith +%R% o% 110-- '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo, )160(% "s prayed for, &e considered the t&o cases toether%

heir petition in +%R% o% 11726>, E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and #hair*an #epeda clai*ed that ".# had no clear rissuance of the preli*inary *andatory in5unction because, ollo# pp% 192)19(%

o$e*ber 2, 1-, ".# and Jude Reyes filed their consolidated #o**ent to the petition and supple*ental petition '+11726>, ollo, pp% 2>0)>0(%

o$e*ber 2, 1-, the Republic, E4ecuti$e /ecretary +uinona and +"! #hair*an #epeda *o$ed for the issuance trainin order en5oinin Jude Pacuin and Jude Reyes fro* enforcin their uestioned orders and ".# fro* operatalai fronton '+%R% o% 1726>, ollo, pp% 62)6>(% "ction on the *otion deferred%

R% o% 110--

tion for Cnter$ention

e Republic of the Philippines 'Republic( represented by +"! 5ustifies its belated inter$ention in +%R% o% 110-- on theunds that it has an interest in$ol$ed in this case and &ill be affected by the .ecision dated /epte*ber 1, 1- '+%R% 0--, ollo, p% 22(%

e purpose of its inter$ention is to nullify the decision of Jude "uusto E% Aillarin of the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch -0,nila, dated /epte*ber 1, 1- '+%R% o% 110--, ollo# p% 22(%


50/69

e purpose of its inter$ention is to nullify the decision of Jude "uusto E% Aillarin of the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch -0,nila, dated /epte*ber , 19 in #i$il #ase o% 99)-660, &hich upheld the $alidity of =rdinance o% 706 of the #ity onila rantin ".# a franchise to operate a 5ai)alai fronton% Mayor +e*iliano ;opeG appealed said decision to the #ourt opeals, but on February , 19, he filed a ?ithdra&al of "ppeal% The #ourt of "ppeals appro$ed the &ithdra&al in a resoed May , 19% "n entry of 5ud*ent &as *ade by the court of "ppeals on May 26, 19 and by the Reional Trial #ou

nch -0, Manila, on =ctober 27, 12%

1, the #ity of Manila filed an action to annul the franchise of ".# &ith the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch 2>, Manila '#se o% 1)91>(% The co*plaint &as dis*issed on .ece*ber 21, 11% o appeal &as ta3en fro* said dis*issal of thee%

e #ity of Manila filed &ith this #ourt a petition for declaratory 5ud*ent to nullify the franchise of ".# '+%R% o% 101769(tion &as dis*issed in a resolution dated =ctober >, 11 for lac3 of 5urisdiction%

ee *e*bers of the /anunian Panlunsod of Manila also filed &ith the Reional Trial #ourt, !ranch >7, Manila, a peo*pel Mayor ;opeG to cancel the per*it and license he issued in fa$or of ".# pursuant to ordinance o% 706 '#i$il #1)9>0(% The petition &as dis*issed on June -, 12% o appeal &as ta3en fro* said dis*issal of the case%

he Motion for Reconsideration)Cn)Cnter$ention, /upple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)in)Cnter$ention and /econdpple*ental Motion for Reconsideration)in)Cnter$ention, the Republic *erely clai*ed that =rdinance o% 706 had beenealed by P%.% o% 771 'ollo# pp% 229)2-9(, that the authority to issue per*its and licenses for the operation of 5ai)alai hn transferred to +"! by E%=% o% >2 of President Nuirino effecti$e July 1, 11 and that ".# &as ne$er issued a fran

#onress 'ollo, pp% >9>)>0(% o&here in its pleadins did the Republic point out &here the first .i$ision erred in resot&o rounds of the petition for certiorari in +%R% o% 110--,ch &ere /#R" 72 '199(, the #ourt held8D Pro$incial +o$ern*

/orsoon $% /ta*atela3y, 6 Phil% 206 1>78(% The period of trial ter*inates &hen the period of 5ud*ent beins 'El :opino $% Philippine ational !an3, 6- Phil% 92 1>78(%

r$ention as an action is not co*pulsory% "s deduced fro* the per*issi$e &ord *ay in the rule, the a$ail*ent of the reiscretionary on the courts '+arcia $% .a$id, 67 Phil% 27 1>8(% an i*portant factor ta3en into consideration by the courrcisin their discretion is &hether the inter$enorBs rihts *ay be fully protected in a separate proceedin 'Peyer $% MartiPhil% 72 118(%

e case of Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, > /#R" 2>9 '17(, can not, ser$e as authority in support of the Repur$ention at this late stae% &hile said case in$ol$ed an inter$ention for the first ti*e in the /upre*e court, the *otion to &ed to inter$ene &as filed before the appeal could be decided on the *erits% The inter$ention allo&ed in epublic v.

ndiganbayan, +%R% o% 607>, Resolution, March >, 12, &as also *ade before the decision on the *erits by this #ourtrast, the inter$ention of the Republic &as souht after this #ourt had decided the petition in +%R% o% 110-- and petiti co*plied &ith and satisfied the 5ud*ent% ?hile the inter$ention in .irector of ;ands &as in a case that &as ti*ely app

* the Reional Trial #ourt to the #ourt of "ppeals and fro* the #ourt of "ppeals to the /upre*e #ourt, the inter$entionpublic &as in a case that had beco*e final and e4ecutory *ore than fi$e years prior to the filin of the *otion to inter$en

of /epte*ber 16, 1-, therefore, &hen the republic *o$ed to inter$ene, there &as no loner any pendin litiation betparties in +%R% no% 110--% Cnter$ention is an au4iliary and supple*ental re*edy to an e4istin, not a settled litiation 'creGa $% Rosales, 2 /#R" - 1618(% "n inter$ention &as disallo&ed in a case &hich has beco*es final and e4ecutory

Manila Pencil #o%, 77 /#R" 191 1778(

e case of $uson v. Court of Appeals, 172 /#R" 70 '19( in$o3ed by the Republic '+%R% o% 11726>, ollo, pp% 17)19ppropriate because the inter$ention therein &as before the trial court, not in this #ourt%

s Reply, the Republic ad*itted that the First .i$ision only ruled on the procedural issues raised in the petition and not ostitutionality of P%.% o% 771% Ct e$en ured that +"! &as not a party to the case and therefore &as not bound by)illarin decision because under /ection - of Rule >, a 5ud*ent is conclusi$e only bet&een the parties and theircessor)in)interest by title subseuent to the co**ence*ent of the action or special proceedin, litiatin for the sa*e t under the sa*e title and in the sa*e capacity 'ollo, pp% 229)2>-, ->1(%

h *ore reason then that the Republic should ha$e $entilated its clai* aainst ".# in a separate proceedin%

tly, an inter$enor should not be per*itted to 5ust sit idly and &atch the passin scene as an uninterested o$erloo3er befo3es up to see3 5udicial relief 'Pacursa $% .el Rosario, 2- /#R" 12 1698(%

e =ffice of the President &as a&are of the plans of ".# to start operation as early as 199% =n May , 199, ".# infor*d =ffice of its inten

Lim v Pacquing

Documents

Transcript of Lim v Pacquing