G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 HON. ALFREDO S.

LIM, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, and the City of Manila, petitioners, vs. HON. FELIPE G. PACQUING, as Judge, branch 40, Regional Trial Court of Manila and ASSOCIATED CORPORATION, respondents. Facts: The petition was dismissed by the First Division of this Court on 01 September 1994 based on a finding that there was "no abuse of discretion, much less lack of or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of respondent judge [Pacquing]", in issuing the questioned orders. Judge Pacquing had earlier issued in Civil Case No. 88-45660, RTC of Manila, Branch 40, the following orders which were assailed by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim: (1) order directing Manila mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue the permit/license to operate the jai-alai in favor of Associated Development Corporation (ADC). (2) order directing mayor Lim to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for non-compliance with the order dated 28 March 1994. (3) order dated 20 April 1994 reiterating the previous order directing Mayor Lim to immediately issue the permit/license to Associated Development Corporation (ADC). The order dated 28 march 1994 was in turn issued upon motion by ADC for execution of a final judgment rendered on 9 September 1988 which ordered the Manila Mayor to immediately issue to ADC the permit/license to operate the jai-alai in Manila, under Manila Ordinance No. 7065. Subsequently, also in G.R. No. 115044, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Games and Amusements Board, filed a "Motion for Intervention; for Leave to File a Motion for reconsideration in Intervention; and to Refer the case to the Court En Banc" and later a "Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration-inIntervention and to Admit Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration-inIntervention". ISSUE: Whether or not the Associated Development Corporation has a valid and subsisting franchise to maintain and operate the jai-alai;


409. 3. declaring Presidential Decree No. 954 and Presidential Decree No. Act No. The net result is that the authority to grant franchises for the operation of jai-alai frontons is in Congress. would not amount to something meaningful UNLESS the holder of the permit or license was also FRANCHISED by the national government to so operate. 94-71656. since ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate the jai-alai. including the City of Manila. allowing the Republic of the Philippines to intervene in G. judgment is hereby rendered: 1. with respect to wagers or betting. permit. No.It is clear from the foregoing that Congress did not delegate to the City of Manila the power "to franchise" wagers or betting. to the facts of this case. Moreover. including the jai-alai. setting aside the writs of preliminary injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction issued by respondent Judge Vetino Reyes in civil Case No. 4. declaring that respondent Associated Development corporation (ADC) does not possess the required congressional franchise to operate and conduct the jai-alai under Republic Act No. was the power to "license. 771 valid and constitutional. Therefore. while the regulatory function is vested in the GAB. or regulate" which therefore means that a license or permit issued by the City of Manila to operate a wager or betting activity. . permit. 2. but retained for itself such power "to franchise". and transferred to the GAB on 1 January 1951 by Executive Order No. or regulate wagers or betting on jai-alai was removed from local governments. 392. 115044. What Congress delegated to the City of Manila in Rep. SO ORDERED. 771. WHEREFORE. even this power to license.R. it may not so operate even if its has a license or permit from the City Mayor to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila. such as the jai-alai where bets are accepted. for the foregoing reasons.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.