Quimsing vs. Lachica

The power granted to local governments under Republic Act No. 938 to regulate the establishment, maintenance, and operation of "cockpits" does not include the authority to permit "cockfighting" on days other than those allowed by law.

Petitioner Joaquin Quimsing was the owner and manager of a duly licensed cockpit in the District of Molo, Iloilo City. The cockpit was raided by police and Constabulary officers on a Thursday because it was allegedly operated illegally, as Thursday was not a legal holiday. Quimsing relied on an ordinance of the Iloilo City Council to justify Thursday operations, while respondents relied on national statutes restricting cockfighting.

Petitioner Joaquin Quimsing was the owner and manager of a duly licensed cockpit in the District of Molo, Iloilo City. On February 13, 1958, a Thursday and not a legal holiday, the cockpit was raided by members of the city police force and the Constabulary under the command of Capt. Alfredo Lachica and Lt. Narciso Aliño Jr. The raid was conducted on the ground that the cockpit was being illegally operated that day. Quimsing and nine others were arrested and charged in the Municipal Court of Iloilo with violating Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Quimsing claimed the cockpit was authorized to operate on Thursdays by Iloilo City Ordinance No. 58, series of 1956, amending Ordinance No. 51, series of 1954. Despite this, Capt. Lachica allegedly threatened to raid the cockpit if cockfighting continued on Thursdays. Quimsing then commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against Major Cesar Lucero, Capt. Lachica, and Lt. Aliño. He sought compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages for the allegedly illegal raid and arrest, claiming bad faith due to a personal dispute with the city mayor. He also sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to restrain respondents from stopping Thursday operations and making arrests.

Respondents answered that the raid and arrest were made in good faith and in the faithful discharge of their duties, asserting that cockfighting on Thursdays was illegal despite the city ordinances. They also filed a counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages. After hearing, the Court of First Instance dismissed both the petition and the counterclaim, prompting Quimsing's appeal.

• Representation by City Fiscal: Petitioner maintained that the lower court erred in not disqualifying the city fiscal from representing respondents sued in their personal capacity in the first cause of action.
• Assailing Ordinance Validity: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in not disqualifying the city fiscal from questioning the validity of a city ordinance.
• Validity of the Ordinance: Petitioner contended that the lower court erred in declaring Ordinance No. 51, as amended by Ordinance No. 58, illegal, asserting that sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code apply to municipalities, not chartered cities, and that Republic Act No. 938 empowered the city to regulate cockpits.
• Award of Damages: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in not awarding damages for the allegedly illegal raid and arrest.

• Good Faith in Raid: Respondents countered that the raid and arrest were made in good faith, without malice, and in the faithful discharge of their official duties.
• Illegality of Thursday Cockfighting: Respondents argued that cockfighting on Thursdays remained illegal under Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code and sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code, notwithstanding the city ordinances.

• Damages: Whether respondents are liable for compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages for the raid and arrest of petitioner.
• Representation by City Fiscal: Whether the city fiscal was disqualified from representing respondents sued in their personal capacity for acts done in their official capacity.
• Assailing Ordinance Validity: Whether it was improper for the city fiscal to assail the validity of a city ordinance.
• Validity of the Ordinance: Whether the city ordinance authorizing cockfighting on Thursdays is valid, given the power granted by Republic Act No. 938 to regulate cockpits.

• Damages: No. Respondents are not liable for damages because they acted in good faith and in the honest belief that they were enforcing the law.
• Representation by City Fiscal: No. The city fiscal was not disqualified because the Charter of Iloilo City imposes a duty to represent city officers but does not prohibit representation when they are sued personally for acts performed in their official capacity.
• Assailing Ordinance Validity: N/A. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve this issue, noting that respondents could assail the ordinance in their defense regardless of the fiscal's role.
• Validity of the Ordinance: No. The ordinance is invalid because the power to regulate "cockpits" under Republic Act No. 938 does not include the power to permit "cockfighting" on days other than those allowed by law.

• Damages: There was no evidence of bad faith. Major Lucero had no knowledge of the raid, while Capt. Lachica and Lt. Aliño Jr. were unaware of the city ordinances and honestly believed Thursday cockfighting was illegal. Since they acted under a firm conviction that they were performing their duty, and compensatory damages were not proven, no damages were due.
• Representation by City Fiscal: Section 64 of the Iloilo City Charter requires the city fiscal to represent city officers in their official capacity but does not prohibit him from representing them when sued personally for acts done in their official capacity, especially when they claim good faith. Furthermore, respondents were sued in their official capacity in the second cause of action, justifying the fiscal's appearance.
• Assailing Ordinance Validity: The Court declined to rule on this assignment of error, as it was not essential to the determination of the case; respondents could validly challenge the ordinance in their defense.
• Validity of the Ordinance: While sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code apply to municipalities and not chartered cities, this does not mean petitioner could hold cockfights on Thursdays. Republic Act No. 938 grants local governments the power to regulate the establishment, maintenance, and operation of "cockpits," but this does not extend to regulating "cockfighting" days. Repeals by implication are not favored, and granting such power would effectively repeal the restrictions in the Revised Administrative Code. Grants of power to local governments are construed strictly. Moreover, laws regulate "cockpits" and "cockfighting" separately; the power over cockfighting days remains with the national government.

• Strict Construction of Grants of Power to Local Governments — Grants of power to local governments are construed strictly, and doubts in interpretation are resolved in favor of the national government and against the political subdivisions. The Court applied this to hold that the power to regulate "cockpits" did not impliedly grant the power to authorize "cockfighting" on unauthorized days.
• Repeals by Implication Not Favored — Repeals and even amendments by implication are not favored. The Court used this to reject the argument that Republic Act No. 938 impliedly amended or repealed sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code.

• "grants of power to local governments are to be construed strictly, and doubts in the interpretation thereof should be resolved in favor of the national government and against the political subdivisions concerned." — This passage establishes the canonical rule of strict construction for local government powers, which the Court used to deny the city's authority to permit cockfighting on Thursdays.
• "'cockpits' and 'cockfighting' are regulated separately by our laws." — This distinction was central to the Court's holding that the power to regulate the physical establishment of cockpits does not encompass the authority to determine the days when cockfighting may be held.

• Article 199, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes participation in cockfights or organizing cockfights on a day other than those permitted by law, or at a place other than a licensed cockpit. The Court held this provision still restricted Thursday cockfighting.
• Sections 2285 and 2286, Revised Administrative Code — Restrict cockfighting to legal holidays and local fiestas. The Court noted these apply to municipalities, not chartered cities, but the restriction on cockfighting days remained valid national policy.
• Section 21, Commonwealth Act No. 158 (Charter of the City of Iloilo) — Grants the Municipal Board power to regulate places of amusement. The Court found this did not extend to fixing cockfighting days.
• Republic Act No. 938, as amended by Republic Act No. 1224 — Grants local governments the power to regulate the establishment, maintenance, and operation of cockpits. The Court strictly construed this as not including the power to authorize cockfighting on non-holidays.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.