Pedro vs Provincial Board of Rizal G. R. No. 34163, September 18, 1 31 !

acts" Gregorio Pedro argues for the nullity of Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved on ece!"er 29, 1928, "y the te!porary councillors appointed "y the provincial governor of #i$al, %ligio Naval, on the ground that &1' it i!pairs the ac(uired rights of said appellant) &2' it *as enacted on account of pre+udice, "ecause it *as intended for a special and not a general purpose, na!ely to prevent, at any cost, the opening, !aintenance, and e,ploitation of the coc-pit of the said petitioner.

constituted, *hich

suspends the effects of another *hich had "een

enacted to favor the grantee of a coc-pit license, is valid and legal.

& G. R. No. 34163, September 18, 1 31 ' GR(G)R#) P(*R), P(+#+#)N(R ,N* ,PP(--,N+, .S. +%( PR).#N/#,- B),R* )! R#0,- (+ ,-., R(SP)N*(N+S ,N* ,PP(--((S. *(/#S#)N .#--,1R(,-, 2." 2his case is "efore us "y virtue of the appeal ta-en "y the petitioner

appellant) and &3' it provides for special co!!ittee co!posed of persons *ho are not !e!"ers of the council, vested the! *ith po*ers *hich of their very nature, cannot "e delegated "y said council to that co!!ittee. /e further contends that, having o"tained the proper per!it to !aintain, e,ploit, and open to the pu"lic the coc-pit in (uestion, having paid the license fee and fulfilled all the re(uire!ents provided "y Ordinance No. 30, series of 1928, he has ac(uired a right *hich cannot "e ta-en a*ay fro! hi! "y Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, *hich *as su"se(uently approved. #ss$e" 1hether a license authori$ing the operation and e,ploitation of a coc-pit falls under property rights *hich a person !ay not "e deprived of *ithout due process of la* %eld" No. 3. 2he court held3 &1' 2hat a license authori$ing the operation and 2he lo*er court erred in holding that the opening, !aintenance, and operation of the Galas coc-pit is in+urious to the consu!ptive patients of the 7antol 7anatoriu!. 8. 2he lo*er court erred in a"staining fro! !a-ing any ruling regarding the legality of the action ta-en "y the provincial "oard, suspending the effects of Ordinance No. 30 of the !unicipal council of 4aloocan, and in finally disapproving it, according to the 2. 6n support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the follo*ing alleged errors as co!!itted "y the trial court in its +udg!ent, to *it3 1. 2he lo*er court erred in holding that Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved "y the acting councillors, is valid and legal. 2he lo*er court erred in denying the petitioner an ac(uired right, not*ithstanding Ordinance No. 30 and the per!it given hi! "y the president in accordance there*ith, Gregorio Pedro fro! the +udg!ent of the 4ourt of 5irst 6nstance of #i$al dis!issing his action for the annul!ent of an ordinance, *ith costs against hi!.

e,ploitation of a coc-pit is not property of *hich the holder !ay not "e deprived *ithout due process of la*, "ut a !ere privilege *hich !ay "e revo-ed *hen the pu"lic interests so re(uire) &2' that the *or- entrusted "y a !unicipal council to a special sanitary co!!ittee to !a-e a study of the sanitary effects upon the neigh"orhood of the esta"lish!ent of a coc-pit, is not legislative in character, "ut only infor!ational, and !ay "e delegated) and &3' that an ordinance, approved "y a !unicipal council duly

resolutions enacted "y it and nu!"ered 1130, series of 1928, and 108, series of 1929. 0. 2he lo*er court erred in dis!issing this case and in not declaring per!anent the in+unction sought, and in not sentencing the plaintiffs 9respondents: +ointly and severally to pay the da!ages clai!ed in the co!plaint. 2he follo*ing relevant facts are necessary for the decision of the (uestion raised "y the instant appeal3 On ;ay 8, 1926, there *as organi$ed in the !unicipality of 4aloocan, Province of #i$al, an association for the construction and e,ploitation of coc-pits, called <=a 7ociedad >ighani.< On ;ay 22, 1926, %ugenio 2ansioco, the president of the association, applied to the !unicipal president of 4aloocan and o"tain a per!it to construct a "uilding of strong !aterials at Galas, in said !unicipality, to "e used as coc-pit, upon pay!ent of the proper fees. &%,hi"it 1.' 1hile the construction *as under *ay, Pa"lo, then president of 4aloocan, addressed a co!!unication to %ugenio 2ansioco on ?une 10, 1926, *arning hi! that the site of the "uilding *as not the one designated "y the chief of police, and that it *as *ithin the radius of 1,0@@ !eters fro! the hospital of the Philippine Antitu"erculosis 7ociety in 7antol, in direct contravention of Ordinance No. 10, series of 1926, enacted on ;ay 18, 1926. 2he per!it having "een annulled, and the pay!ents theretofore !ade forfeited, the <7ociedad >ighani< filed civil case No. 3@03B in the 4ourt of 5irst 6nstance of ;anila on 7epte!"er 21, 1926, against said Pa"lo Pa"lo, as !unicipal president of 4aloocan, et al., for a preli!inary in+unction re(uiring the! to refrain fro! i!peding or o"structing the operation and e,ploitation of the >ighani coc-pit, *hich at that ti!e *as co!pleted and ready to "e thro*n open to the pu"lic.

On August 26,192B, the 4ourt of 5irst 6nstance of ;anila rendered +udg!ent a"solving the defendants fro! the co!plaint, *hich *as affir!ed "y this court on Octo"er 10, 1928. &4o!pany <>ighani< vs. Pa"lo, 03 Phil., 886.' On 7epte!"er 18, 192B, the !unicipal council of 4aloocan enacted Ordinance No. 38, providing in the first section, a!ong other things, that outside the "arrios of =o!a, 2alipapa, and Novaliches, *here only one coc-pit !ight "e esta"lished, coc-pits !ight "e esta"lished at a distance of not less than 1,0@@ !eters fro! another licensed coc-pit, pu"lic schoolhouse, or any hospital or charita"le institution e,isting *ithin the !unicipal radius. As a result of the general election held on ?une 0, 1928, in the !unicipality of 4aloocan, #i$al, the !unicipal council, for!erly co!prising Pa"lo Pa"lo, as president, >ias >ernardino, as vice.president, and 7everino Pangani"an, iego ?usto, %ste"an 7anche$, Patricio Galuran, #ay!undo Andres, %!iliano 7a!son, Cicente 7evilla, =ucas Pascual, Placido 4. del ;undo, elfin #odrigue$, ?orge Nadurata, Anacleto Cictoria, %!ilio Aca", and ;ateo Austria, as councillors, *as su"stituted "y another co!prising the ne*ly elected o!inador A(uino, as president, iego ?usto, as vice. president, and >ias >ernardino, 5laviano de ?esus, Pedro Galang, 4elestino 4. 4elosa, Nicolas 4arpio, =ucas Pascual, >asilio >iglanga*a, and =ucas >usta!ante, as councillors, *ho *ere inducted into office on Octo"er 16th of that year. On ece!"er 21, 1928, the plaintiff herein, Gregorio Pedro, ac(uired "y

a"solute sale all the rights and interests of the <7ociedad >ighani< in the coc-pit "earing its na!e. &%,hi"it ;.' On the sa!e date, ece!"er 21, 1928, said plaintiff, Gregorio Pedro,

addressed a co!!unication to the !unicipal council of 4aloocan soliciting a per!it to open, operate, !aintain, and e,ploit said coc-pit for a period of four years, "inding hi!self to o"serve to the letter all !unicipal ordinances on coc-pits. &%,hi"it A.'

On

ece!"er 26, 1928, the !unicipal council of 4aloocan passed

passed resolution No. 9, series of 1928, approving Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, suspending the effects of resolution No. 2@2 of the suspended council, approving Ordinance No. 30, series of 1928, *hile a special co!!ittee created "y the sa!e ordinance investigated the e,pediency of per!itting the e,ploitation and opening of the Galas coc-pit at the site applied for "y the proprietor, Gregorio Pedro. &%,hi"it 6.' On the sa!e date, ece!"er 29, 1928, the provincial "oard of #i$al

resolution No. 2@2 approving Ordinance No. 30, series of 1928, a!ending section 1 of Ordinance No. 38, series of 192B, providing, a!ong other things that only one coc-pit could "e esta"lished in each of the "arrios of Galas, =o!a, 2alipapa, and Novaliches, and any other place outside said "arrios, provided, in the latter case, said coc-pits are at a distance of not less than 1,@@@ !eters fro! another licensed coc-pit, and 0@@ !eters fro! any hospital or charita"le institution *ithin the !unicipality of 4aloocan. &%,hi"it 4.' On the sa!e date, ece!"er 26, 1928, the !unicipal councillors of

passed resolution No. 1130 suspending the effects of resolution No. 2@2 of the !unicipal council of 4aloocan approving Ordinance No. 30, series of 1928, pending final decision on the validity of said ordinance "y said "oard. &%,hi"it /.' On ?anuary 16, 1929, the irector of the 7antol 2u"erculosis 7anatoriu!

4aloocan, >ias >ernardino, 5laviano de ?esus, and Pedro Galang, signed and for*arded to the provincial governor of #i$al an accusation against o!inador A(uino, the !unicipal president, and the other councillors *ho approved Ordinance No. 30, series of 1928, alleging that they had "een "ri"ed to vote in favor of that ordinance. &%,hi"it 8.' 2he provincial governor endorsed the accusation to the provincial "oard of #i$al, *hich through resolution No. 111@ dated ece!"er 2B, 1928, ordered the te!porary suspension of the !e!"ers denounced pending the ad!inistrative investigation of the accusation. >y virtue of said resolution No. 111@ of the provincial "oard of #i$al, and using one of the po*ers conferred upon hi! "y la*, the provincial governor of #i$al, %ligio Naval, suspended the !unicipal president and the denounced !e!"ers fro! their respective offices on to 0.%.' On the sa!e date, ece!"er 28, 1928, "et*een 9 and 1@ oDcloc- in the ece!"er 28, 1928. &%,hi"its 0

addressed a co!!unication to the te!porary president of the !unicipal council of 4aloocan, 5laviano de ?esus, stating that a coc-pit esta"lished in the "arrio of Galas, o*ing to the noise and cla!or of the cro*d, *ould retard the recovery of the patients in said sanatoriu!, and *ould tend to increase the danger of spreading the disease a!ong those visiting the coc-pit. &%,hi"it 11' On 5e"ruary 1, 1929, the 4hief of the %,ecutive >ureau confir!ed the resolution of the provincial "oard of #i$al holding the respondents in the ad!inistrative investigation !entioned a"ove guilty of !alad!inistration, and i!posing upon each of the! a punish!ent of thirty daysD suspension. &%,hi"it B.' On the sa!e date, 5e"ruary 1, 1929, follo*ing the decision of the %,ecutive >ureau !entioned a"ove, the provincial "oard of #i$al, through resolution No. 108, disapproved said resolution No. 2@2 of the !unicipal council of 4aloocan, approving Ordinance No. 30, series of 1928. &%,hi"it 1.' On 5e"ruary 2, 1929, the president of the third sanitary division of #i$al, acting upon the appellantDs application filed on ?anuary 3@, 1929, issued a certificate to the effect that after a proper inspection of the Galas coc-pit,

!orning, the appellant Gregorio Pedro paid into the !unicipal treasury the su! of P2,@0@ as a license fee on his coc-pit for the first (uarter of the year 1929, and the proper receipt &%,hi"it =', and the per!it &%,hi"it ', *ere issued to hi! authori$ing hi! to operate, !aintain, e,ploit, and open to the pu"lic a day coc-pit in the "arrio of Galas, 4aloocan, #i$al, for a period of four years. On ece!"er 29, 1928, the !unicipal council ad interi! in 4aloocan,

he had found it to "e in good sanitary condition. 2he appellant argues for the nullity of Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, On 5e"ruary B, 1929, Gregorio Pedro furnished a "ond of P1@,@@@ in favor of the !unicipality of 4aloocan to secure the pay!ent of the fees accruing during the years fro! 1929 to 1932, *hich is the period included in the license issued to hi! for the opening and operation of his coc-pit in Galas, and this "ond *as accepted and approved "y the respondent !unicipal president, o!inador A(uino, and certified "y the provincial treasurer, ?ose Cillegas. &%,hi"it %.' On 5e"ruary 13, 1929, councillor =ucas >usta!ante su"!itted a resolution at a special session of the !unicipal council of 4aloocan, *here"y said council appealed to the %,ecutive >ureau fro! the afore!entioned resolution No. 108 of the provincial "oard of #i$al, "ut the resolution did not pass o*ing to the lac- of t*o.thirds of the !e!"ers necessary, *ith five !e!"ers voting in favor and three against it. On 5e"ruary 18, 1929, the appellant Gregorio Pedro sent the !unicipal president of 4aloocan a co!!unication, infor!ing hi! that having fulfilled all the re(uire!ents of the la* and the ordinances then in force, he *ould open his coc-pit in Galas to the pu"lic in the !orning of 5e"ruary 1B, 1929. &%,hi"it ?.' On 5e"ruary 10, 1929, the respondent !unicipal president of 4aloocan addressed a co!!unication to the appellant Gregorio Pedro infor!ing hi! that under no circu!stance could said president per!it the appellant to open his coc-pit in Galas, 4aloocan, to the pu"lic, for Ordinance No. 30, series of 1928, under *hich a per!it had "een given hi! to open and e,ploit his aforesaid coc-pit had "een disapproved "y the provincial "oard of #i$al in its resolution No. 108, series of 1928, as a result of *hich the afore!entioned ordinance "eca!e null and void. 2he petitioner.appellant contends that, having o"tained the proper per!it to !aintain, e,ploit, and open to the pu"lic the coc-pit in (uestion, having paid the license fee and fulfilled all the re(uire!ents provided "y Ordinance No. 30, series of 1928, he has ac(uired a right *hich cannot "e ta-en a*ay fro! hi! "y Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, *hich *as su"se(uently approved. 2his court has already held that an ordinance regulating the functioning of coc-pits does not create irrevoca"le rights and !ay "e a"rogated "y another ordinance. &Cinco vs. ;unicipality of /inigaran, 81 Phil., B9@) ?oa(uin vs. /errera, 3B Phil., B@0) 12 4orpus ?uris, 908, sec. 898) 3B 4orpus ?uris, 168.' 2he petitioner.appellant also contends that said Ordinance No. 36 *as passed due to pre+udice <"ecause it *as intended for a special and not a general purpose, na!ely to prevent, at any cost, the opening, !aintenance, and e,ploitation of the coc-pit of the said petitioner.< 2he aforesaid Ordinance No. 36 *as not approved for the purpose of in+uring the petitioner, "ut to correct an irregularity consisting in the passage of Ordinance No. 30, *hich had "een enacted to favor the said petitioner. appellant. 2he <7o. ciedad >ighani,< fro! *hich the herein petitioner. appellant ac(uired the o*nership of the coc-pit here in (uestion, *as denied a license to operate it, "ecause it had "een constructed in 2he first (uestion to decide in this appeal is that raised in the first assign!ent of error, to *it, *hether Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved "y the te!porary councillors, is valid. violation of Ordinance No. 10, series of 1926, later a!ended "y Ordinance No. 38, series of 192B. 2he <7ociedad >ighani< instituted proceedings against the pres. ident and !unicipal council of 4aloocan, approved on ece!"er 29, 1928, "y the te!porary councillors appointed "y the provincial governor of #i$al, %ligio Naval, on the ground that &1' it i!pairs the ac(uired rights of said appellant) &2' it *as enacted on account of pre+udice, "ecause it *as intended for a special and not a general purpose, na!ely to prevent, at any cost, the opening, !aintenance, and e,ploitation of the coc-pit of the said petitioner. appellant) and &3' it provides for special co!!ittee co!posed of persons *ho are not !e!"ers of the council, vested the! *ith po*ers *hich of their very nature, cannot "e delegated "y said council to that co!!ittee.

#i$al, in civil case No. 3@03B of the 4ourt of 5irst 6nstance of ;anila, to prevent said defendants fro! i!peding the operation and e,ploitation of the >ighani coc-pit, and the court decided in favor of said defendants, a"solving the! fro! the co!plaint on the ground a!ong other reasons, that the >ighani coc-pit had "een constructed *ithin the prohi"ited distance fro! the Antitu"ercular 7anatoriu! of 7antol, and that decision *as affir!ed "y this court on appeal. &4o!pany <>ighani< vs. Pa"lo, supra.' 2he coc-pit in (uestion no* is the for!er >ighani coc-pit !entioned a"ove) it occupies the sa!e site) and the sa!e hygienic reasons *hich pro!pted the enact!ent of Ordinance No. 10, a!ended "y Ordinance No. 38, cited a"ove, e,ist no*) therefore, *hen this *as a!ended "y Ordinance No. 30, reducing the distance "et*een a coc-pit and any hospital, so that the >ighani coc-pit *ould "e "eyond said distance, the !unicipal council *hich a!ended it acted *ith partiality to*ards a certain person, na!ely, the petitioner.appellant, to the pre+udice of the patients in the aforesaid sanatoriu!. According to %lliot in his *or- <;unicipal 4orporations,< cited "y said petitioner.appellant hi!self, said Ordinance No. 30 is void "ecause it is partial. &%lliot, ;unicipal 4orporations, sec. 18B) ;unicipal 4orporations, p. 910'. Ordinance No. 36, *hich see-s to correct said irregularity, suspended the effects of said Ordinance No. 30, i!pliedly reesta"lishing Ordinance No. 38, is therefore valid. 2he other reason given "y the petitioner.appellant to sho* that Ordinance No. 36, is void is that the !unicipal council in approving it delegated its legislative po*ers to a special sanitary co!!ittee. 7ection 2 of Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, provides as follo*s3 illon,

Galas for *hich Gregorio Pedro has applied for a per!it, *ould "e in+urious to any pu"lic or private interest. 2his special co!!ittee shall !a-e such investigation and su"!it a report in due for! to this !unicipal council *ithin the shortest ti!e possi"le for its definite action.< 2he !unicipal council of 4aloocan pro te!pore therefore does not delegate "y that ordinance to the special co!!ittee there"y created any legislative function, "ut only entrusts to it the study of the effect of the operation and e,ploitation of the coc-pit under consideration upon pu"lic and private interests, in order to deter!ine *hether or not the license should issue. 6nfor!ational *or- of this nature, o*ing to its technical character, !ay "e entrusted to technical co!!ittees. &12 4orpus ?uris, 886.' /aving arrived at the conclusion that Ordinance No. 36 is valid and that the petitioner.appellant has ac(uired no irrevoca"le right "y virtue of the license granted hi! under Ordinance No. 30, approved to favor hi!, *hich is therefore void, *e need not discuss the other assign!ents of error "y the petitioner.appellant. 1herefore, *e are of opinion and so hold3 &1' 2hat a license authori$ing the operation and e,ploitation of a coc-pit is not property of *hich the holder !ay not "e deprived *ithout due process of la*, "ut a !ere privilege *hich !ay "e revo-ed *hen the pu"lic interests so re(uire) &2' that the *or- entrusted "y a !unicipal council to a special sanitary co!!ittee to !a-e a study of the sanitary effects upon the neigh"orhood of the esta"lish!ent of a coc-pit, is not legislative in character, "ut only infor!ational, and !ay "e delegated) and &3' that an ordinance, approved "y a !unicipal council duly constituted, *hich suspends the effects of another *hich had "een enacted to favor the grantee of a coc-pit license, is valid and legal. >y virtue *hereof, finding no error in the +udg!ent appealed fro!, it is

<7%4. 2. A co!!ittee is here"y provided for, to "e co!posed of the president of the third sanitary division of 4aloocan, #i$al, a practising physician residing in this !unicipality, and a !e!"er of the !unicipal council, *hose duty it shall "e to !a-e the necessary investigation to deter!ine *hether or not the e,ploitation of the coc-pit in the "arrio of

here"y affir!ed, *ith costs against the appellant. 7o ordered. Avancea, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez , and Imperial, JJ., concur.