Robinson vs. Court of Appeals

Where a zoning ordinance itself requires a three-fourths vote of the sanggunian for any amendment, a subsequent resolution reclassifying a site is invalid if passed by only a majority vote; the general statutory majority requirement does not override the ordinance's specific amendment requirement. Consequently, the site remained classified as residential and the mayor's permits for cockpit operation were null and void.

Petitioner Robinson V. Casiño owned the Don Romulo Rodriguez Coliseum on Block 125, corner Lugod and Jadol Streets, Gingoog City, and operated it as a cockpit under a license issued pursuant to Sections 2285 to 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code. Private respondent Gingoog Gallera, Inc., represented by its President and Manager Lindy L. De Lara, was the corporation that contested his cockpit operation. Under Presidential Decree No. 1802, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1802-A, city and municipal mayors with the concurrence of their sanggunians have authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting pursuant to PGC rules and subject to PGC review and supervision. The City of Gingoog had enacted Resolution No. 49, Code Ordinance, Series of 1984, which classified certain areas as residential zones and contained Section 6.44 requiring a three-fourths vote of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for any amendment to the zoning ordinance.

Before the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Gingoog City passed Resolution No. 49, Code Ordinance, Series of 1984, the Don Romulo Rodriguez Coliseum, located on Block 125 at the corner of Lugod and Jadol Streets, Gingoog City and owned by petitioner Robinson V. Casiño, was a licensed cockpit under Sections 2285 to 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code. Resolution No. 49 thereafter classified certain areas of the city as residential zones and declared the Coliseum site as residential, which led to the cancellation of Casiño's license to operate the cockpit. Article 10, Section 6.44 of the same resolution provided that changes in the zoning ordinance as a result of review by the Local Review Committee shall be treated as amendments, and that any amendment to the zoning ordinance or provision thereof shall be carried out through a resolution of three-fourths vote of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, effective only after approval and authentication by the HSRC.

On August 13, 1985, Resolution No. 378, Code Ordinance, Series of 1985, reclassified Block 125 as within the recreational zone, purportedly amending Resolution No. 49. Nine members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod participated: four voted for the amendment, four voted against, and one abstained. The vice-mayor, as presiding officer, broke the deadlock by voting for the amendment. When Resolution No. 378 was transmitted to then City Mayor Miguel Paderanga for approval, he returned it to the Sangguniang Panlungsod within ten days without any action, stating that his approval was not necessary because it did not involve a disposition of city government funds, as provided by Section 180 of the Local Government Code and Section 14 of the charter of Gingoog City.

By virtue of Resolution No. 378, the succeeding city mayor, Arturo S. Lugod, issued to Casiño a permit to operate a cockpit dated April 2, 1986, which was renewed by another permit issued on January 5, 1987. Private respondent Gingoog Gallera, Inc. protested the operation of the Coliseum before the Philippine Gamefowl Commission on the ground that no certificate of registration had yet been issued by the PGC, although city mayor's permits had been issued to Casiño. On April 11, 1986, the PGC, through OIC Pacifico L. Orog, sent a telegram to the Station Commander of Gingoog City to suspend in the meantime the operation of the cockpit. On April 24, 1986, the PGC sent a telegram to the city mayor to stop any cockfight in the Coliseum in view of its failure to register with the PGC.

Thereafter, Gallera filed Special Civil Action No. 86-020 for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVII, Gingoog City, against Casiño, on the ground that Resolution No. 378, purportedly amending zoning Ordinance No. 49, was invalid. Gallera asserted that the classification of the Coliseum's site as still within the residential zone of Gingoog City was maintained and unchanged, thereby rendering the mayor's permits issued to Casiño null and void for being in violation of Section 6 of the Rules and Regulations of the PGC. On April 25, 1986, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Casiño to desist from operating the Coliseum until the PGC shall have finally decided the controversy between Casiño and Gallera.

The lower courts found that Resolution No. 378 had not validly amended Resolution No. 49 because it did not obtain the required three-fourths vote, and that no PGC registration certificate had been issued to Casiño. The site of the Coliseum therefore remained classified as residential under the zoning ordinance.

• PGC Authority: Petitioner argued that the Philippine Gamefowl Commission does not control the operations of the Coliseum with respect to local or ordinary cockfights during Sundays, holidays, and fiestas in Gingoog City, despite the mayor's permits issued for 1986 and 1987 with the concurrence of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
• Validity of Resolution No. 378: Petitioner argued that Resolution No. 378 was legal because it was passed by a majority of five affirmative votes against four negative votes; he contended that the three-fourths vote requirement under Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49 was merely a formal requirement and an enactment of the Sangguniang Panlungsod that was ultra vires.

• Invalidity of Resolution No. 378: Respondent Gallera asserted that Resolution No. 378, purportedly amending zoning Ordinance No. 49, was invalid and that the classification of the Coliseum's site as within the residential zone remained maintained and unchanged.
• Nullity of Mayor's Permits: Respondent asserted that the mayor's permits issued to Casiño were null and void for being in violation of Section 6 of the Rules and Regulations of the PGC.
• Functus Officio: Respondents observed that they saw no useful purpose in having the permits declared null and void since they were already functus officio.

• Validity of Resolution No. 378: Whether Resolution No. 378 validly amended Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49 despite receiving only a majority vote and not the three-fourths vote required by Section 6.44.
• Nullity of Mayor's Permits: Whether the mayor's permits issued to Casiño for 1986 and 1987 are null and void because the Coliseum site remained classified as residential and no PGC registration certificate had been issued.
• PGC's Power: Whether the Philippine Gamefowl Commission may stop the operation of the Coliseum through local officials, or whether it has only review and supervision over the city mayor's licensing authority.
• Functus Officio: Whether the Court may still adjudicate the validity of the mayor's permits even if they are already functus officio.

• Validity of Resolution No. 378: No. Resolution No. 378 did not validly amend Resolution No. 49 because it failed to comply with the three-fourths vote requirement in Section 6.44; the general majority requirement in the city charter and Local Government Code does not prevail over the specific amendment requirement.
• Nullity of Mayor's Permits: Yes, the mayor's permits are null and void. The Coliseum site remained residential, and no PGC registration certificate had been issued, so the permits violated the PGC rules and the zoning ordinance.
• PGC's Power: The PGC has only review and supervision, not control, but it validly exercised that power by calling the local authorities' attention to non-compliance and indicating its disapproval of their acts.
• Functus Officio: Yes. The Court may still adjudicate the validity of the permits to guide future issuance of mayor's permits and restrain future violations, even if the permits are already functus officio.

• Validity of Resolution No. 378: Although the charter of the City of Gingoog and the Local Government Code require only a majority for the enactment of an ordinance, Resolution No. 49 cannot be validly amended without complying with the categorical three-fourths vote requirement in Section 6.44 of the very ordinance sought to be amended. The pertinent provisions of the city charter and the Local Government Code are general and embrace a wider scope; Section 6.44 is a specific and particular provision for amendments to Resolution No. 49. Where a statute contains both a particular enactment and a general one that would include the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general statement affects only cases not within the particular provision. Thus, the higher requisite vote in Resolution No. 49 governs, because municipal authorities are in a better position to determine the evils sought to be prevented by the particular provision. The more stringent requirement forestalled the attempt to remove the prohibition against a cockpit in a residential zone by reclassifying Block 125 into a recreational zone. Block 125 therefore remains classified as a residential area, and the operation of a cockpit therein is prohibited.
• Nullity of Mayor's Permits: The Court relied on the PGC Rules and Regulations of June 1, 1981, particularly Sections 6 and 12. Section 6 requires cockpits to be constructed and operated within appropriate areas as prescribed by zoning laws or ordinances. Section 12 requires all cockpits to register with the PGC and prohibits any cockpit from operating without a proper registration certificate secured annually. Because the site remained residential and no registration certificate had been issued, much less authorization to operate from the PGC, the mayor's permits issued to Casiño were null and void. The PGC did not grant the registration certificate because the cockpit was not constructed within the appropriate areas prescribed by the zoning laws or ordinances of Gingoog City.
• PGC's Power: The PGC has the power not of control but only of review and supervision. This power was validly exercised over the Coliseum when the PGC sought to stop its operations through the local officials. The PGC did not whimsically order the suspension and stoppage; it exercised its power of review over acts performed by local authorities in relation to or affecting the exercise of its functions. Review is a reconsideration or re-examination for purposes of correction, exercised to determine whether it is necessary to correct the acts of a subordinate and to see that he performs his duties in accordance with law. The PGC did this by bringing to the local authorities' attention Casiño's non-compliance with the rules, which was reasonable and necessary in the discharge of its regulatory functions. The PGC may indicate its disapproval of the acts of the local officials concerned. The Court of Appeals clarified that both its related decision in Gingoog Gallera, Inc. vs. The Philippine Gamefowl Commission and the present case are in accord: the city or municipal mayor, with the concurrence of the sanggunian, has the primary power to issue licenses for the operation of ordinary cockpits under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1802, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1802-A, but this power is not absolute; the PGC rules must be observed and the sanggunian must concur.
• Functus Officio: The issue was the validity of the city mayor's permits of 1986 and 1987, and their nullity was affirmed. Although respondents observed that there was no useful purpose in declaring the permits null and void because they were already functus officio, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that adjudication was still in order. The ruling could serve as a guide for the proper and legal issuance of mayor's permits to cockpit owners. As quoted, justice demands that the Court act not only for the vindication of outraged rights, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future.

• Specific-over-general rule for ordinance amendment vote requirements — Where a general law requires only a majority vote for the enactment of ordinances, but a specific zoning ordinance requires a three-fourths vote for its amendment, the specific requirement governs. The Court applied this rule to hold that Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49 required a three-fourths vote to amend the zoning ordinance, and that Resolution No. 378, passed by only a majority, was invalid.
• PGC's power of review and supervision over cockpit licensing — The Philippine Gamefowl Commission has no power of control over local officials but only review and supervision. Review is a reconsideration or re-examination for purposes of correction, exercised to determine whether it is necessary to correct the acts of a subordinate and to see that he performs his duties in accordance with law. The PGC may indicate its disapproval of local acts. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the PGC's action of calling the local authorities' attention to Casiño's non-compliance and seeking the stoppage of the Coliseum's operations through them.
• Requisites for cockpit operation — Under the PGC Rules and Regulations, cockpits must be constructed and operated within appropriate areas as prescribed by zoning laws or ordinances, and all cockpits must register with the PGC and secure a registration certificate annually; no cockpit may operate without it. The Court applied these requisites to hold that the mayor's permits were void because the site remained residential and no PGC registration certificate had been issued.
• Adjudication despite functus officio for guidance and restraint — Courts may still adjudicate the validity of permits that are already functus officio when the ruling can guide future official action and restrain future violations. The Court applied this principle to affirm the nullity of the permits even though they were no longer in force, so that the ruling could guide the proper issuance of mayor's permits to cockpit owners.

• "Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general statement must be taken to affect only such cases within its language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment." — The Court used this rule to resolve the conflict between the general majority-vote requirement in the city charter and Local Government Code and the specific three-fourths vote requirement in Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49.
• "In sum, Block 125 where Coliseum is located remains classified as a residential area, hence the operation of a cockpit therein is prohibited." — This is the Court's central conclusion on the zoning issue, from which the nullity of the mayor's permits followed.
• "Review is a reconsideration or re-examination for purposes of correction. The power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessary to correct the acts of the subordinate and to see to it that he performs his duties in accordance with law." — This passage defines the nature of the PGC's power over local officials, which the Court characterized as review and supervision rather than control.
• "As pertinently quoted, justice demands that we act then, not only for the vindication of the outraged rights, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future." — The Court cited this to justify adjudicating the validity of the mayor's permits despite their being functus officio.

• Philippine Gamefowl Commission vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 146 SCRA 294 (1986) — Cited for the definition of review as a reconsideration or re-examination for purposes of correction and for the scope of the PGC's power of review over subordinate local acts.
• Cootuaco vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 122 (1988) — Cited for the proposition that the PGC may indicate its disapproval of the acts of local officials concerned.
• Manila Railroad Company vs. Insular Collector of Customs, 52 Phil. 950 (1929) — Cited for the specific-over-general rule: where a particular enactment and a general one are in the same statute, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general statement affects only cases not within the particular provision.
• Javier vs. Commission on Elections, 144 SCRA 194 (1986) — Cited for the principle that courts may act not only to vindicate outraged rights already gone but also to guide and restrain future conduct, supporting adjudication despite functus officio.
• Gingoog Gallera, Inc. vs. The Philippine Gamefowl Commission, CA-G.R. SP No. 15024 — Cited by the Court of Appeals as a related decision holding that the city or municipal mayor with sanggunian concurrence has primary power to issue licenses for ordinary cockpits, subject to PGC review and supervision.

• Article 10, Section 6.44, Resolution No. 49, Code Ordinance, Series of 1984 (Gingoog City) — Requires any amendment to the zoning ordinance to be carried out through a resolution of three-fourths vote of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and to take effect only after approval and authentication by the HSRC. Applied: Resolution No. 378 failed to obtain the required three-fourths vote and therefore did not validly amend Resolution No. 49.
• Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1802, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1802-A — Provides that city and municipal mayors, with the concurrence of their respective sanggunians, have authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting pursuant to PGC rules and subject to PGC review and supervision. Applied: The mayor's licensing power is not absolute; it requires observance of PGC rules and sanggunian concurrence.
• Sections 6 and 12, Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (June 1, 1981) — Section 6 requires cockpits to be constructed and operated within appropriate areas as prescribed by zoning laws or ordinances. Section 12 requires all cockpits to register with the PGC and prohibits operation without a proper registration certificate secured annually. Applied: The Coliseum remained in a residential zone and no PGC registration certificate had been issued, so the mayor's permits were void.
• Section 180, Local Government Code, and Section 14, Charter of Gingoog City — Cited by Mayor Miguel Paderanga when he returned Resolution No. 378 without action, stating that his approval was not necessary because the resolution did not involve a disposition of city government funds. The Court included this in the factual backdrop but did not rest its holding on it.
• Sections 2285 to 2286, Revised Administrative Code — Cited as the provisions under which the Coliseum was a licensed cockpit before Resolution No. 49 classified its site as residential.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, and Padilla, JJ., concurred.