2/15/2019 G.R. No. 34163 September 18, 1931 - GREGORIO PEDRO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL.

ET AL. <br /><br />056 Phil 123 : SEPT…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1931 > September 1931 Decisions > G.R. No. 34163 September
18, 1931 - GREGORIO PEDRO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL.

056 Phil 123:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 34163. September 18, 1931.]

GREGORIO PEDRO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL.,

Respondents-Appellees.

Arsenio Santos, for Appellant.

Provincial Fiscal Opinion and Guevara, Francisco & Recto, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; COCKPITS; LICENSE FOR COCKPIT. — 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process of law, but a mere privilege that may be withdrawn when public interest so requires.

2. ID.; ID.; SPECIAL SANITARY COMMITTEE; DELEGATION OF POWERS BY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL — The
work entrusted by a municipal council to a special sanitary committee to make a study of the effects that
the establishment of a cockpit will have on public health, is not legislative in character, but only
informative and may be delegated.

3. ID.; ID.; VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE. — An ordinance, approved by a municipal council duly constituted,
which suspends the effects of another that had been enacted to favor the grantee of a cockpit license, is
valid and legal.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
DECISION

VILLA-REAL, J.:

This case is before us by virtue of the appeal taken by the petitioner Gregorio Pedro from the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing his action for the annulment of an ordinance, with costs
against him.

In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the trial court
in its judgment, to wit:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The lower court erred in holding that Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved by the acting
councillors, is valid and legal.

"2. The lower court erred in denying the petitioner an acquired right, notwithstanding Ordinance No. 35
and the permit given him by the president in accordance therewith.

ChanRobles Intellectual Property "3. The lower court erred in holding that the opening, maintenance, and operation of the Galas cockpit is
injurious to the consumptive patients of the Santol Sanatorium.
Division
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1931septemberdecisions.php?id=103 1/4
2/15/2019 G.R. No. 34163 September 18, 1931 - GREGORIO PEDRO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL. <br /><br />056 Phil 123 : SEPT…
"4. The lower court erred in abstaining from making any ruling regarding the legality of the action taken
by the provincial board, suspending the effects of Ordinance No. 35 of the municipal council of Caloocan,
and in finally disapproving it, according to the resolutions enacted by it and numbered 1135, series of
1928, and 154, series of 1929.

"5. The lower court erred in dismissing this case and in not declaring permanent the injunction sought,
and in not sentencing the plaintiffs [respondents] jointly and severally to pay the damages claimed in the
complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

The following relevant facts are necessary for the decision of the question raised by the instant appeal:
On May 8, 1926, there was organized in the municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal, an association for
the construction and exploitation of cockpits, called "La Sociedad Bighani."cralaw virtua1aw library

On May 22, 1926, Eugenio Tansioco, the president of the association, applied to the municipal president
of Caloocan and obtain a permit to construct a building of strong materials at Galas, in said municipality,
to be used as cockpit, upon payment of the proper fees. (Exhibit 1.)

While the construction was under way, Pablo, then president of Caloocan, addressed a communication to
Eugenio Tansioco on June 15, 1926, warning him that the site of the building was not the one designated
by the chief of police, and that it was within the radius of 1,500 meters from the hospital of the Philippine
Antituberculosis Society in Santol, in direct contravention of Ordinance No. 15, series of 1926, enacted on
May 14, 1926.

The permit having been annulled, and the payments theretofore made forfeited, the "Sociedad Bighani"
filed civil case No. 30537 in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 21, 1926, against said
Pablo Pablo, as municipal president of Caloocan, Et Al., for a preliminary injunction requiring them to
refrain from impeding or obstructing the operation and exploitation of the Bighani cockpit, which at that
time was completed and ready to be thrown open to the public.

On August 26, 1927, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment absolving the defendants
from the complaint, which was affirmed by this court on October 15, 1928. (Company "Bighani" v. Pablo,
53 Phil., 886.)

On September 18, 1927, the municipal council of Caloocan enacted Ordinance No. 34, providing in the
first section, among other things, that outside the barrios of Loma, Talipapa, and Novaliches, where only
one cockpit might be established, cockpits might be established at a distance of not less than 1,500
meters from another licensed cockpit, public schoolhouse, or any hospital or charitable institution existing
September-1931 Jurisprudence within the municipal radius.

As a result of the general election held on June 5, 1928, in the municipality of Caloocan, Rizal, the
municipal council, formerly comprising Pablo Pablo, as president, Blas Bernardino, as vice- president, and
G.R. No. 35937 September 2, 1931 - DIEGO CUEVAS Severino Pañganiban, Diego Justo, Esteban Sanchez, Patricio Galuran, Raymundo Andres, Emiliano
v. JUAN G. LESACA Samson, Vicente Sevilla, Lucas Pascual, Placido C. del Mundo, Delfin Rodriguez, Jorge Nadurata, Anacleto
Victoria, Emilio Acab, and Mateo Austria, as councillors, was substituted by another comprising the newly
056 Phil25cralaw:red

elected Dominador Aquino, as president, Diego Justo, as vice-president, and Blas Bernardino, Flaviano de
Jesus, Pedro Galang, Celestino C. Celosa, Nicolas Carpio, Lucas Pascual, Basilio Biglang-awa, and Lucas
G.R. No. 34331 September 3, 1931 - ILOILO
COMMERCIAL AND ICE COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE Bustamante, as councillors, who were inducted into office on October 16th of that year.
COMMISSION
On December 21, 1928, the plaintiff herein, Gregorio Pedro, acquired by absolute sale all the rights and
056 Phil 28 interests of the "Sociedad Bighani" in the cockpit bearing its name. (Exhibit M.)

G.R. No. 33224 September 4, 1931 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. BERNABE VILLAPANDO
056 Phil 31
G.R. No. 33795 September 4, 1931 - ALEIDA
SAAVEDRA v. CEFERINO YBAÑEZ ESTRADA
056 Phil 33
G.R. No. 34187 September 7, 1931 - JOAQUIN A.
ELEAZAR v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.
On the same date, December 21, 1928, said plaintiff, Gregorio Pedro, addressed a communication to the
municipal council of Caloocan soliciting a permit to open, operate, maintain, and exploit said cockpit for a
period of four years, binding himself to observe to the letter all municipal ordinances on cockpits. (Exhibit
A.)
On December 26, 1928, the municipal council of Caloocan passed resolution No. 202 approving
Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928, amending section 1 of Ordinance No. 34, series of 1927, providing,
among other things that only one cockpit could be established in each of the barrios of Galas, Loma,
Talipapa, and Novaliches, and any other place outside said barrios, provided, in the latter case, said
cockpits are at a distance of not less than 1,000 meters from another licensed cockpit, and 500 meters
from any hospital or charitable institution within the municipality of Caloocan. (Exhibit C.)

056 Phil 39 On the same date, December 26, 1928, the municipal councillors of Caloocan, Blas Bernardino, Flaviano
de Jesus, and Pedro Galang, signed and forwarded to the provincial governor of Rizal an accusation
G.R. No. 34917 September 7, 1931 - PEOPLE OF against Dominador Aquino, the municipal president, and the other councillors who approved Ordinance
THE PHIL. v. LUA CHU, ET AL. No. 35, series of 1928, alleging that they had been bribed to vote in favor of that ordinance. (Exhibit 4.)
056 Phil 44 The provincial governor endorsed the accusation to the provincial board of Rizal, which through resolution
No. 1110 dated December 27, 1928, ordered the temporary suspension of the members denounced
G.R. No. 35066 September 7, 1931 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. PURIFICACION ALMONTE pending the administrative investigation of the accusation. By virtue of said resolution No. 1110 of the
provincial board of Rizal, and using one of the powers conferred upon him by law, the provincial governor
056 Phil 54 of Rizal, Eligio Naval, suspended the municipal president and the denounced members from their
respective offices on December 28, 1928. (Exhibits 5 to 5-E.)
G.R. No. 32894 September 8, 1931 - LEOCADIA
ANGELO v. CIPRIANO PACHECO On the same date, December 28, 1928, between 9 and 10 o’clock in the morning, the appellant Gregorio
Pedro paid into the municipal treasury the sum of P2,050 as a license fee on his cockpit for the first
056 Phil 70 quarter of the year 1929, and the proper receipt (Exhibit L), and the permit (Exhibit D), were issued to
him authorizing him to operate, maintain, exploit, and open to the public a day cockpit in the barrio of
G.R. No. 33598 September 8, 1931 - GOVERNMENT Galas, Caloocan, Rizal, for a period of four years.
OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO ABAD, ET AL.
On December 29, 1928, the municipal council ad interim in Caloocan, passed resolution No. 9, series of
056 Phil 75
1928, approving Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, suspending the effects of resolution No. 202 of the
G.R. No. 34638 September 9, 1931 - PEOPLE OF suspended council, approving Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928, while a special committee created by the
THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN CABAJAR same ordinance investigated the expediency of permitting the exploitation and opening of the Galas
cockpit at the site applied for by the proprietor, Gregorio Pedro. (Exhibit 6.)
056 Phil 83
On the same date, December 29, 1928, the provincial board of Rizal passed resolution No. 1135
G.R. No. 35235 September 10, 1931 - PEOPLE OF suspending the effects of resolution No. 202 of the municipal council of Caloocan approving Ordinance
THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MOMO No. 35, series of 1928, pending final decision on the validity of said ordinance by said board. (Exhibit H.)

056 Phil 86 On January 16, 1929, the Director of the Santol Tuberculosis Sanatorium addressed a communication to
the temporary president of the municipal council of Caloocan, Flaviano de Jesus, stating that a cockpit
G.R. No. 35346 September 10, 1931 - PEOPLE OF
established in the barrio of Galas, owing to the noise and clamor of the crowd, would retard the recovery
THE PHIL. v. PEDRO S. SORIANO
of the patients in said sanatorium, and would tend to increase the danger of spreading the disease
056 Phil 95 among those visiting the cockpit. (Exhibit 11.)

G.R. No. 34283 September 11, 1931 - PEOPLE OF On February 1, 1929, the Chief of the Executive Bureau confirmed the resolution of the provincial board
THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO ALVIAR of Rizal holding the respondents in the administrative investigation mentioned above guilty of
maladministration, and imposing upon each of them a punishment of thirty days’ suspension. (Exhibit 7.)
056 Phil 98
On the same date, February 1, 1929, following the decision of the Executive Bureau mentioned above,
the provincial board of Rizal, through resolution No. 154, disapproved said resolution No. 202 of the

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1931septemberdecisions.php?id=103 2/4
2/15/2019 G.R. No. 34163 September 18, 1931 - GREGORIO PEDRO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL. <br /><br />056 Phil 123 : SEPT…
G.R. No. 34004 September 12, 1931 - APOLONIA
CALMA v. EULALIO CALMA
056 Phil 102
G.R. No. 34497 September 12, 1931 - LA YEBANA
COMPANY v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE
MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL.
056 Phil 106
G.R. No. 33413 September 16, 1931 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. VICTORINO CARIÑO
056 Phil 109
G.R. No. 34780 September 16, 1931 - RURAL
TRANSIT COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
056 Phil 115
G.R. No. 35223 September 17, 1931 - BACHRACH
MOTOR CO. v. TALISAY- SILAY MILLING CO., ET AL.
056 Phil 117
G.R. No. 34163 September 18, 1931 - GREGORIO
PEDRO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL.
056 Phil 123
G.R. No. 34574 September 19, 1931 - CIRILO
ABELLA v. MARIANO GONZAGA
056 Phil 132
G.R. No. 34385 September 21, 1931 - ALEJANDRA
TORRES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO LIMJAP
056 Phil 141
G.R. No. 34774 September 21, 1931 - EL ORIENTE,
FABRICA DE TABACOS, INC. v. JUAN POSADAS
056 Phil 147
G.R. No. 30756 September 22, 1931 - ENRIQUE
BRIAS DE COYA v. TAN LUA, ET AL.
056 Phil 153
G.R. No. 34962 September 22, 1931 -
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
056 Phil 165
G.R. No. 35246 September 22, 1931 - CENTRAL
AZUCARERA DE TARLAR v. RICARDO DE LEON, ET AL.
056 Phil 169
G.R. No. 34906 September 23, 1931 - FERNANDEZ
HERMANOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.
057 Phil 929
G.R. No. 34840 September 23, 1931 - NARCISO
GUTIERREZ v. BONIFACIO GUTIERREZ
056 Phil 177
G.R. No. 34401 September 24, 1931 - DEE HAO KIM
v. LEON BUSIANG, ET AL.
056 Phil 181
G.R. No. 34642 September 24, 1931 - FABIOLA
SEVERINO v. GUILLERMO SEVERINO, ET AL.
056 Phil 185
G.R. No. 34960 September 25, 1931 - LA
COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v.
MABALACAT SUGAR CO.
057 Phil 937
G.R. No. 34564 September 29, 1931 - BASILIO
CARIÑO v. ARSENIO JAMORALNE
056 Phil 188
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1931septemberdecisions.php?id=103
municipal council of Caloocan, approving Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928. (Exhibit 1.)
On February 2, 1929, the president of the third sanitary division of Rizal, acting upon the appellant’s
application filed on January 30, 1929, issued a certificate to the effect that after a proper inspection of
the Galas cockpit, he had found it to be in good sanitary condition.
On February 7, 1929, Gregorio Pedro furnished a bond of P10,000 in favor of the municipality of Caloocan
to secure the payment of the fees accruing during the years from 1929 to 1932, which is the period
included in the license issued to him for the opening and operation of his cockpit in Galas, and this bond
was accepted and approved by the respondent municipal president, Dominador Aquino, and certified by
the provincial treasurer, Jose Villegas. (Exhibit E.)
On February 13, 1929, councillor Lucas Bustamante submitted a resolution at a special session of the
municipal council of Caloocan, whereby said council appealed to the Executive Bureau from the
aforementioned resolution No. 154 of the provincial board of Rizal, but the resolution did not pass owing
to the lack of two-thirds of the members necessary, with five members voting in favor and three against
it.
On February 14, 1929, the appellant Gregorio Pedro sent the municipal president of Caloocan a
communication, informing him that having fulfilled all the requirements of the law and ordinances then in
force, he would open his cockpit in Galas to the public in the morning of February 17, 1929. (Exhibit J.)
On February 15, 1929, the respondent municipal president of Caloocan addressed a communication to
the appellant Gregorio Pedro informing him that under no circumstance could said president permit the
appellant to open his cockpit in Galas, Caloocan, to the public, for Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928,
under which a permit had been given him to open and exploit his aforesaid cockpit had been
dissapproved by the provincial board of Rizal in its resolution No. 154, series of 1928, as a result of which
the aforementioned ordinance became null and void.
The first question to decide in this appeal is that raised in the first assignment of error, to wit, whether
Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved by the temporary councillors, is valid.
The appellant argues for the nullity of Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved on December 29,
1928, by the temporary councillors appointed by the provincial governor of Rizal, Eligio Naval, on the
ground that (1) it impairs the acquired rights of said appellant; (2) it was enacted on account of
prejudice, because it was intended for a special and not a general purpose, namely to prevent, at any
cost, the opening, maintenance, and exploitation of the cockpit of the said petitioner-appellant; and (3) it
provides for special committee composed of persons who are not members of the council, vested them
with powers which of their very nature, cannot be delegated by said council to that committee.
The petitioner-appellant contends that, having obtained the proper permit to maintain, exploit, and open
to the public the cockpit in question, having paid the license fee and fulfilled all the requirements
provided by Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928, he has acquired a right which cannot be taken away from
him by Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, which was subsequently approved. This court has already held
that an ordinance regulating the functioning of cockpits does not create irrevocable rights and may be
abrogated by another ordinance. (Vinco v. Municipality of Hinigaran, 41 Phil., 790; Joaquin v. Herrera, 37
Phil., 705; 12 Corpus Juris, 958, sec. 494; 37 Corpus Juris, 168.)
The petitioner-appellant also contends that said Ordinance No. 36 was passed due to prejudice "because
it was intended for a special and not a general purpose, namely to prevent, at any cost, the opening,
maintenance, and exploitation of the cockpit of the said petitioner." The aforesaid Ordinance No. 36 was
not approved for the purpose of injuring the petitioner, but to correct an irregularity consisting in the
passage of Ordinance No. 35, which had been enacted to favor the said petitioner-appellant. The
"Sociedad Bighani," from which the herein petitioner-appellant acquired the ownership of the cockpit here
in question, was denied a license to operate it, because it had been constructed in violation of Ordinance
No. 15, series of 1926, later amended by Ordinance No. 34, series of 1927. The "Sociedad Bighani"
instituted proceedings against the president and municipal council of Caloocan, Rizal, in civil case No.
30537 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, to prevent said defendants from impeding the operation
and exploitation of the Bighani cockpit, and the court decided in favor of said defendants, absolving them
from the complaint on the ground among other reasons, that the Bighani cockpit had been constructed
within the prohibited distance from the Antitubercular Sanatorium of Santol, and that decision was
affirmed by this court on appeal. (Company "Bighani" v. Pablo, supra.) The cockpit in question now is the
former Bighani cockpit mentioned above; it occupies the same site; and the same hygienic reasons which
prompted the enactment of Ordinance No. 15, amended by Ordinance No. 15, amended by Ordinance No.
34, cited above, exist now; therefore, when this was amended by Ordinance No. 35, reducing the
distance between a cockpit and any hospital, so that the Bighani cockpit would be beyond said distance,
the municipal council which amended it acted with partiality towards a certain person, namely, the
petitioner-appellant, to the prejudice of the patients in the aforesaid sanatorium. According to Elliot in his
work "Municipal Corporations," cited by said petitioner-appellant himself, said Ordinance No. 35 is void
because it is partial. (Elliot, Municipal Corporations, sec. 147; Dillon, Municipal Corporations, p. 915).
Ordinance No. 36, which seeks to correct said irregularity, suspended the effects of said Ordinance No.
35, impliedly reestablishing Ordinance No. 34, is therefore valid.
The other reason given by the petitioner-appellant to show that Ordinance No. 36, is void is that the
municipal council in approving it delegated its legislative powers to a special sanitary committee.
Section 2 of Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, provides as follows:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 2. A committee is hereby provided for, to be composed of the president of the third sanitary
division of Caloocan, Rizal, a practising physician residing in this municipality, and a member of the
municipal council, whose duty is shall be to make the necessary investigation to determine whether or
not the exploitation of the cockpit in the barrio of Galas for which Gregorio Pedro has applied for a
permit, would be injurious to any public or private interest. This special committee shall make such
investigation and submit a report in due form to this municipal council within the shortest time possible
for its definite action."
cralaw virtua1aw library
The municipal council of Caloocan pro tempore therefore does not delegate by that ordinance to the
special committee thereby created any legislative function, but only entrusts to it the study of the effect
of the operation and exploitation of the cockpit under consideration upon public and private interests, in
order to determine whether or not the license should issue. Informational work of this nature, owing to
its technical character, may be entrusted to technical committees. (12 Corpus Juris, 846.)
Having arrived at the conclusion that Ordinance No. 36 is valid and that the petitioner-appellant has
acquired no irrevocable right by virtue of the license granted him under Ordinance No. 35, approved to
favor him, which is therefore void, we need not discuss the other assignments of error by the Petitioner-
Appellant.
Wherefore, we are of opinion and so hold: (1) 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 which may be revoked when the public interests so require; (2) that the work entrusted by a
municipal council to a special sanitary committee to make a study of the sanitary effects upon the
neighborhood of the establishment of a cockpit, is not legislative in character, but only informational, and
3/4
2/15/2019 G.R. No. 34163 September 18, 1931 - GREGORIO PEDRO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL. <br /><br />056 Phil 123 : SEPT…
may be delegated; and (3) that an ordinance, approved by a municipal council duly constituted, which
suspends the effects of another which had been enacted to favor the grantee of a cockpit license, is valid
and legal.

By virtue whereof, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, it is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Imperial, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1931septemberdecisions.php?id=103 4/4