Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
DANILO A. DU, |
|
G.R. No. 175042 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VENANCIO R.
JAYOMA, then |
|
Present: |
|
Municipal Mayor of Mabini, |
|
|
|
VICENTE GULLE,
JR., |
|
|
|
JOVENIANO MIANO,
WILFREDO |
|
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, |
|
MENDEZ, AGAPITO
VALLESPIN, |
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
RENE BUCIO, JESUS
TUTOR, |
|
|
|
CRESCENCIO
BERNALES, |
|
VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. |
|
EDGARDO YBANEZ,
and REY |
|
|
|
PAGALAN, then members
of the |
|
|
|
Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Mabini, |
|
|
|
|
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
April 23, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
In the absence
of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff, there can be no cause of action.
This Petition
for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision[2]
dated July 11, 2006 and the Resolution[3]
dated October 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00492.
Factual
Antecedents
On July 7, 1988,
the Sangguniang Bayan of the
For the period
January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992, the winning bidder was Engr. Edgardo
Carabuena.[5]
However, due to his failure to comply
with the legal requirements for operating a cockpit, the Sangguniang Bayan on December 1, 1988 adopted Resolution No. 127,
series of 1988,[6]
authorizing petitioner Danilo Du to continue his cockpit operation until the
winning bidder complies with the legal requirements.[7]
On July 9, 1997,
upon discovering that petitioner has been operating his cockpit in violation of
Municipal Ordinance No. 1, series of 1988, the Sangguniang Bayan passed Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of
1997,[8]
suspending petitioners cockpit operation effective upon approval.[9]
On July 11,
1997, pursuant to Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997, respondent
Venancio R. Jayoma, then Mayor of Mabini, in a letter,[10]
ordered petitioner to desist from holding any cockfighting activity effective
immediately.[11]
Feeling
aggrieved, petitioner filed with Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
In their Answer,[16]
respondents interposed that under the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, the
power to authorize and license the establishment, operation and maintenance of
a cockpit is lodged in the Sangguniang
Bayan;[17]
that respondent mayor, in ordering the suspension of petitioners cockpit
operation, was merely exercising his executive power to regulate the
establishment of cockpits in the municipality, pursuant to the ordinances and
resolutions enacted by the Sangguniang
Bayan;[18]
and that Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997, does not need to be
approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
because it is not an ordinance but an expression of sentiments of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mabini.[19]
On October 22,
1997, a Temporary Restraining Order[20]
was issued by the RTC enjoining respondents from suspending the cockpit
operation of petitioner until further orders from the court.[21]
The Petition for
Prohibition was later amended[22]
to include damages, which
the RTC admitted
in an Order[23]
dated January 21, 1998.
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
On October 5,
2004, the RTC rendered a Decision[24]
in favor of petitioner, to wit:
WHEREFORE,
and on the ground that petitioner was able to prove his case with preponderance
of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against
the respondents, ordering the respondents jointly and severally to pay the
petitioner:
1.
The amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) in the concept of
moral damages;
2.
The amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) in the concept of
unearned income considering the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner [that]
he lost Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) for each of the fifteen (15)
Sundays that his cockpit was closed as its operation was ordered suspended by
the respondent. By mathematical computation
P4,000.00 x 15 amounts to P60,000.00;
3.
The amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as exemplary damages
to deter other public officials from committing similar acts;
4.
The amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as attorneys fees,
and to pay the cost.
SO ORDERED.[25]
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA reversed the
Decision of the RTC. According to the
CA, petitioner did not acquire a vested right to operate a cockpit in the
municipality as he was only granted a temporary privilege by the Sangguniang Bayan.[26]
Hence, there being no right in esse,
petitioner is not entitled to damages.[27] Thus, the dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed decision granting
petitioner the award of damages is SET ASIDE and the petition filed by
petitioner against respondents is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[28]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration
which was denied by the CA in a Resolution[29]
dated October 4, 2006.
Issue
Hence, the instant
petition raising the core issue of whether the CA erred in finding that
petitioner is not entitled to damages.[30]
Petitioners
Arguments
Petitioner
contends that Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997, is ultra vires as
it was maliciously, hastily, and unlawfully enforced by respondent mayor two
days after its passage without the review or approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Respondents
Arguments
Echoing the
ruling of the CA, respondents insist that petitioner is not entitled to damages
because he did not acquire a vested right to operate a cockpit in the
municipality.[34]
They also maintain that the suspension of petitioners cockpit operation was
pursuant to law and prevailing ordinance.[35]
A cause of
action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.[36]
Corollarily, the
essential elements of a cause of action are: (1) a right in favor of the
plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect such
right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of the defendant in violation of
the plaintiffs right with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for
which the latter may file an action for the recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief. [37]
Petitioner has no legal right to
operate a cockpit.
In this case, we
find that petitioner has no cause of action against the respondents as he has
no legal right to operate a cockpit in the municipality. Under Resolution No. 127, series of 1988, the
Sangguniang Bayan allowed him to
continue to operate his cockpit only because the winning bidder for the period
January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992 failed to comply with the legal
requirements for operating a cockpit. Clearly, under the said resolution,
petitioners authority to operate the cockpit would end on December 31, 1992 or
upon compliance by the winning bidder with the legal requirements for operating
a cockpit, whichever comes first. As we
see it, the only reason he was able to continue operating until July 1997 was
because the Sangguniang Bayan of Mabini failed to monitor the
status of the cockpit in their municipality.
And even if he
was able to get a business permit from respondent mayor for the period January
1, 1997 to December 31, 1997, this did not give him a license to operate a
cockpit. Under Section 447(a)(3)(v) of
the LGC, it is the Sangguniang Bayan
which is empowered to authorize and license the establishment, operation and
maintenance of cockpits, and regulate cockfighting and commercial breeding of
gamecocks. Considering that no public
bidding was conducted for the operation of a cockpit from January 1, 1993 to
December 31, 1997, petitioner cannot claim that he was duly authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan to operate his cockpit in the municipality for the period
January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997.
Respondent members of the Sangguniang
Bayan, therefore, had every reason to
suspend the operation of petitioners cockpit by enacting Municipal Resolution
No. 065, series of 1997. As the chief executive of the municipal government,
respondent mayor was duty-bound to enforce the suspension of the operation of
petitioners cockpit pursuant to the said Resolution.
It bears
stressing that no evidence was presented to show that upon review by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
License to operate a cockpit is a
mere privilege.
In addition, it is well
enshrined in our jurisprudence that a license
authorizing the
operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of which the holder may
not be deprived without due process of law, but a mere privilege that may be revoked
when public interests so require.[39]
Having said that, petitioners
allegation that he was deprived of due process has no leg to stand on.
Petitioner
not entitled to damages
Without any
legal right to operate a cockpit in the municipality, petitioner is not
entitled to damages. Injury alone does
not give petitioner the right to recover damages; he must also have a right of
action for the legal wrong inflicted by the respondents.[40]
We need not belabor that in order that
the law will give redress for an act causing damage, there must be damnum et injuria that act must be not
only hurtful, but wrongful.[41]
All told, we
find no error on the part of the CA in dismissing petitioners case.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 11, 2006 and
the Resolution dated October 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
00492 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chairperson
Chief Justice
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-107 with Annexes A to J-1 inclusive.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Records, p. 8.
[9] Rollo, pp. 86-87.
[10] Records, p. 7.
[11] Rollo, pp. 87-88.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Records, p. 54.
[21] Rollo, p. 88.
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] Rules of Court, Rule 2, Section 2.
[37] Soloil, Inc. v. Philippine Coconut Authority, G.R. No. 174806, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 185, 190.
[38] Judge Leynes v. Commission on Audit, 463 Phil. 557, 580 (2003).
[39] Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal, 56 Phil. 123, 132 (1931).
[40] Tan v. Perea, 492 Phil. 200, 210 (2005).
[41]