Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
stefan tito miÑoza Petitioner, |
|
G.R. No. 170914 |
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - hON.
CESAR TOMAS LOPEZ, in his official capacity as
Mayor and Chair, Loon Cockpit Arena Bidding and Awards Committee, its Members
namely: HERMINIGILDO M. CALIFORNIA, NOEL CASTROJO, JESSE SEVILLA, FORTUNATO
GARAY, PERFECTO MANTE, ROGELIO GANADOS, P/INSP. JASEN MAGARAN, SANGGUNIANG
BAYAN OF LOON, BOHOL, represented by its Presiding Officer, Vice Mayor RAUL
BARBARONA, and MARCELO EPE, Respondents. |
|
Present: VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: April 13, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
There can be no legal duel
in court when the one who demands satisfaction from the alleged offender is not
even the offended party.
When petitioner’s suit for annulment
of bidding of a cockpit franchise and for damages was dismissed by the lower
courts on the ground that he is not the real party in interest, he now comes
before this Court to assert his legal personality to sue.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari
assails the July 29, 2005 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 83894 which dismissed the
Petition for Certiorari filed before
it. Likewise assailed is the December 2,
2005 Resolution[2]
denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
Factual
Antecedents
For several
years since 1988, petitioner Stefan Tito Miñoza was the duly licensed owner and
operator[3]
of the Loon Cockpit Arena in Cogon Norte, Loon,
Six days later, however,
the Sangguniang Bayan issued
Resolution No. 02-016, Series of 2002[8]
declaring the cockpit in Bgy. Lintuan as unlicensed and that the only licensed
cockpit is the one in Cogon Norte. The
resolution likewise stated that the cockpit in Bgy. Lintuan has no benches,
toilets, or eateries and that the place is prone to vehicular accidents for
lack of parking space. As a result,
Mayor Lopez revoked petitioner’s temporary license to operate.
Subsequently,
Municipal Ordinance No. 03-001 Series of 2003 or the “Cockfighting Ordinance of
Loon”[9]
was approved to regulate cockfighting in the municipality. Pursuant thereto, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted Resolution No. 03-161, Series of 2003[10]
which opened for public bidding a 25-year franchise of the cockpit operation in
Loon. The Loon Cockpit and Awards
Bidding Committee scheduled for August 25, 2003 the prequalification conference
and actual bidding of the franchise of the Loon Cockpit.[11]
Four qualified
parties submitted their cash bids namely, Ricardo Togonon, Ricky Masamayor,
Marcelo Epe (Marcelo), and petitioner’s uncle, Jose Uy (Jose).[12] According to petitioner, he did not personally
join the bidding since he knew that Mayor Lopez will only thwart his bid
because of the case he filed against him before the Ombudsman in line with the
cancellation of the temporary permit earlier issued to him. Hence, it was petitioner’s uncle who submitted
the bid for and on his behalf.
During the
conduct of the public bidding, Marcelo was declared the winner[13]
and a franchise for the cockpit operation in Loon was granted in his favor by
way of Municipal Ordinance No. 03-007, Series of 2003.[14]
On January 29, 2004, petitioner
filed a Complaint[15]
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol in Tagbilaran City against Mayor
Lopez, the members of the Sangguniang
Bayan, the members of the Loon Cockpit Bidding and Awards Committee, and
the franchise awardee, Marcelo, for Annulment of both the bidding process and
Municipal Ordinance No. 03-007, Series of 2003 and for Damages. Petitioner
alleged that the bidding was rigged and fraudulently manipulated to benefit Marcelo,
Mayor Lopez’s rumored business partner and financial backer. Considering the
rigged bidding, petitioner claimed that the ordinance awarding the franchise to
Marcelo has no basis.
Anent his claim for damages,
petitioner alleged that respondents acted in bad faith in granting him the
necessary permits to construct a cockpit in Bgy. Lintuan only to revoke them
when his new cockpit was about to be finished and after he had already spent
approximately a million pesos for construction.
Because of these unjust, illegal and malicious acts of respondents,
petitioner claimed that he suffered great anxiety and extreme prejudice which entitles
him to moral damages of P200,000.00,
exemplary damages of P150,000.00 and actual damages equivalent to
the amount spent for the construction of his new cockpit or P1,000,000.00.
Respondents did
not file their Answer except for Marcelo who filed an Answer-in-Intervention[16]
averring that the suit was meant to harass and to block the grand cock derby that
he was about to stage. He maintained
that no irregularity occurred in the bidding as the officials judiciously
performed their duties.
Marcelo subsequently
moved to dismiss petitioner’s complaint mainly for lack of cause of action and
for estoppel,[17]
arguing that petitioner was not even one of the bidders and that he never filed
any protest during the bidding.
Ruling of the Regional
Trial Court
On March 9,
2004, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that petitioner was not the
proper party to sue since he was not even a bidding participant in the alleged
rigged bidding of the cockpit franchise.
The trial court also found petitioner undeserving of damages. The RTC
ratiocinated in this wise:
In the case of the cockpit arena of plaintiff in
Lintuan, it is to be noted that the Sangguniang Bayan, under Municipal
Ordinance No. 02-016, S-2002, had earlier declared it unfit and sub-standard
being lacking of [sic] facilities and prone to vehicular accident which
considerations the Court finds not only [untenable] but of paramount importance
as it is the bounden duty of any local government or any business proprietor
for that matter to ensure the safety of the life and limbs of the users to
maintain public patronage. And having
awarded the franchise to defendant Marcelo Epe, plaintiff has no business to
question the judgment of the Sangguniang Bayan on the matter as it did not
impair any contract or right granted to third persons much less the plaintiff
as the permit granted to him by the Mayor was only temporary that did not
confer a vested right for the issuance of a franchise. But even granting arguendo that the bidding
was rigged, the incident should have been questioned right then and there or
reasonably after the submission of the Bidding Report to the Sangguniang Bayan,
yet, the records shows the contrary. In
fact, it took plaintiff five months later to do it and surprisingly in time for
the opening activity of the Grand Derby which would only suggest that plaintiff
[sic] intention was malicious and in bad faith and was only out to put defendant
in public shame and embarrassment had his application for temporary restraining
order succeeded. Besides, plaintiff did
not personally participate in the bidding, so that, it is correct to say that
he is not a party-in-interest thereto and, thus, estopped to bring the action
himself in court. Furthermore, he was
afforded all legal remedies therefor, having taken his cause to the Ombudsman
but the same was dismissed for being bereft of propriety. If ever he suffered damages in the
construction of his new cockpit in Lintuan, it was his fault for not [sic]
cautious enough to invest in the enterprise without first obtaining a
franchise.
Wherefore,
in view of all the foregoings, the instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED
with costs against plaintiff.[18]
Petitioner filed
a Motion for Reconsideration[19]
insisting that he is a party-in-interest because as a licensed cockpit operator
for several years, he stands to be benefited or injured by the court’s judgment. The RTC nevertheless dismissed petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration in its March 17, 2004 Order.[20]
Ruling of the Court
of Appeals
Petitioner thus
filed a Petition for Certiorari[21]
before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83894.
He argued that ‘not being a party-in-interest’ is not one of the
enumerated grounds for dismissing a case under the Rules of Court. And granting that it is a ground, he claimed that
he was denied due process when the RTC dismissed his action without allowing
him to present evidence to prove that he is a party-in-interest. Petitioner
asserted that while he did not personally participate in the bidding, it was Jose,
his uncle, who submitted the bid on his behalf. He also asserted that Marcelo’s
claims in his motion to dismiss were matters of defense and questions of fact
that necessitated a trial on the merits which was never conducted.
In its assailed July 29, 2005
Decision,[22] the
CA stressed that due process does not necessarily entail a full-blown trial,
and in petitioner’s case, he was clearly given all the opportunities to be
heard. Moreover, the CA found no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing petitioner’s suit for
lack of cause of action for want of personality to sue. The CA explained, viz:
As shown in the records of the case, it was the
petitioner’s uncle and not the petitioner himself who participated in the
bid. The fact that the petitioner is the
owner of the new and existing cockpit and a licensed cockpit operator for the
past fourteen (14) years is irrelevant.
To
emphasize, the present complaint indeed has no cause of action. Settled is the doctrine that a valid ground
must appear on the face of the complaint.
The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint as
constituting a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged,
the court might render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the
prayer of the complaint. From the face
of the complaint, it is manifest that the petitioner is not the real party in
interest for he was not even a participant in the
Hence, the CA disposed of the
petition as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is
denied due course and accordingly dismissed.
The Order dated
SO ORDERED.[24]
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[25] but
it was denied in a Resolution[26]
dated December 2, 2005.
Hence, this petition.
The Parties’
Arguments
Petitioner
argues that he is a party because he stands to be prejudiced by the rigged
bidding and the assailed ordinance as he was in fact the highest bidder of the
cockfight franchise, it having been agreed by their family that his uncle,
Jose, would only submit the bid on petitioner’s behalf. Petitioner claims that his bid was the highest
if Marcelo’s questionable bid was excluded.
On respondents’ part, they maintain
that petitioner has no cause of action against them.[27]
Issue
The sole issue to be resolved is
whether petitioner has the standing to challenge the bidding proceedings and
the issuance of Ordinance No. 03-007, Series of 2003.
Our Ruling
It is a general
rule that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party-in-interest, who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[28]
Jurisprudence
defines interest as “material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected
by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or
a mere incidental interest. By real
interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.”[29] “To qualify a person to be a real party-in-interest
in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present
real owner of the right sought to be enforced.”[30]
Under this
definition, petitioner, not being one of the bidders clearly has no personality
to contest the alleged rigged bidding as well as to pray for the annulment of
Ordinance No. 03-007, Series of 2003 which granted the franchise to Marcelo. The fact that he owns the cockpit in Bgy.
Lintuan does not clothe him with legal standing to have the bidding proceedings
annulled and Marcelo stripped off of the cockpit franchise. Even assuming that the bidding proceeding was
rigged thereby disqualifying Marcelo as a bidder, the highest bidder would
still be Jose, and not the petitioner who was not even a participant. Contrary
to petitioner’s claim that Jose was his representative, records show that Jose
acted in his personal capacity when he applied to be one of the bidders of the
cockpit franchise.[31] Never was it shown that he was bidding on
behalf of someone else, particularly petitioner. Petitioner’s agreement with
his family and Jose, i.e., that the
latter would bid on behalf of the petitioner, does not bind the respondents.
Thus, had Jose been the highest bidder, the franchise would have been awarded
in his name and not in favor of petitioner. Jose would be the one accountable
to the Sangguniang Bayan with regard
to fulfillment of the obligations of said franchise.
All told, this Court finds no reason
to disturb the judgment of the CA affirming the RTC’s dismissal of petitioner’s
action. Suffice it to state that on the
sole basis of the allegations of the complaint, the court may dismiss the case
for lack of cause of action.
WHEREFORE,
the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 83894 dated
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate
Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 182-192; penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and concurred in by Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Rollo, pp. 161-165, 172-174.
[28] Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 2.
[29] Ortigas Co. Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 615, 625 (2000) citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90667, November 5, 1991, 203 SCRA 310; De Leon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123290, August 15, 1997, 277 SCRA 478; and Barfel Development Corporation. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98177, June 8, 1993, 223 SCRA 268.
[30] Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981, 998 (2000).
[31] CA rollo, p. 54.