ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2018 POLITICAL LAW CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO£ coeereeeereUsesteeeSESESEOt SSS SESEOSSOSSES SU eSs OEE] Se ee T EOE ST See aIe Se See eeSeeeSeSCeSeSS _f KTENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2018 JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS exponen _SUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS POLITICAL LAW CASES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Q: X is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTS). It wanted to be a party-list that represents the LGBT community that they claimed to be marginalized and under-represented sector that is Particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. X complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court. However COMELEC dismissed the Petition ‘on moral grounds stating that: X tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs. They cite the Bible and Koran as basis for their rejection of X. They claim that the party advocates sexual immorality of consensual partnership of gays and lesbians. Should X be granted accreditation as party-list? ‘A: Nes. The court recognizes that X complied with the legal requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. Religion cannot be a basis for the refusal of party-ist registration. Morals should be given secular meanings, otherwise, it Is against full religious freedom, COMELEC's arguments from public morals Cannot be @ ground to deny X's petition for registration since Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize homosexual conduct and it fails to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented by the denial of X as @ party. Under our system of laws, every group has the right to promote its agenda and attempt to Persuade society of the validity ofits position through normal democratic means. (Ang Ladiad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010) : Xs are members of the Malaya Lolas, an organization established for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by military forces in the Philippines during World War Il. They requested for assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers but the officials of the Executive Department declined and took the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japan's compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Jay pan. Did the Executive Department commit grave abuse of discretion in not espousing the claims of Xs? A: No, the Executive Department did not commit grave abuse of the discretion, From a domestic law Perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whother to espouse Petitioners’ claims against Japan. In this case, the Executive Department has already decided that itis the best interest ofthe Country 10 waive al claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question. (Vinuya v. Romulo, @ F. ‘No. 162230, April 28, 2010) fer failing the CPA Board exams, X requested the Board of Accountancy to furnish her with the copies of the examination papers. The Chairman of the Board denied the request on the ‘ground that it Is precluded by a PRC Resolution. Does X have a constitutional right to accees the questioned documents and obtain copies of the examination papers? ‘A: Yes, The people's right to information fs limited to "matters of pubic concern” and fs further subject to such limitations @s may be provided by law. The national board examinations such as the CRA Soa Exams are matters of public concem. The populace in general, and the examinees in particular, would understandably be interested in the fair and competent admit istration of these exams in order to ensure that only those qualified are admitted into the accounting profession. (Antolin v. Domondon, Git Ne 165036, July §, 2010) PAGE1 OF 11Va NEO CENTRAL fae OPERATIONS 2018, JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS Ogre. eee Q: Company X filed a Civil Case seeking to declare null and void certain issuances of the Department of Health with a prayer for damages. This complaint is a result of the suspension of accreditation of Company X by the DOH when Company X failed to file and submit an explanation fon Report on Violative Products given to the Company. Company X is alleging that the suspension of its accreditation was violative of its right to due process because there was no Rotice and hearing. DOH, on the other hand, is invoking the non-suability of the state for the dismissal of the complaint. Who is correct? ‘A: DOH is correct. It is an unincorporated agency which performs sovereign or governmental functions. It is settled that if a Complaint seeks to impose a charge or financial liability against the state, the defense ‘of non-suabilty may be property invoked. In this case, Company X is seeking for damages. Ifit succeeds. in the suit, such would require an appropriation from the national treasury which is precisely the situation Wich the doctrine of state immunity aims to protect the state from. As to the question of violation of due process, parties who choose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges against them ‘cannot complain of a denial of due process. In this case, Company X squandered its opportunity to explain instead of complying with the directive to explain the adverse findings. (Department of Health v. Phil Pharma Wealth, Inc., G.R. No. 182358, February 20, 2013) Q: X was employed by the Bureau of Customs as a clerk and a Special Collecting Officer at NAIA. During a post audit conducted by COA State Auditors, X was found to have failed to remit the total ‘amount of P53,214,258.00. An investigation was conducted on the reported misappropriation of Public funds and an information for violation of R.A. No. 7080 (Plunder) was filed against X. He was directed by the Office of the Ombudsman to file his counter-affidavit. Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding X guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct ordered for his dismissal from service. X contends that the Ombudsman only has recommendatery powers and has no power to dismiss him from government service. Is X correct? ‘A: No, Xs not correct. The Ombudsman has the power to dismiss erring public officials or employees, It 's already well-settled that "the power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory.” As explained by the Court, the fact "that the ‘refusal, without just cause, of any officer to comply with the order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or employee is a ground for disciplinary action [under Section 15 (3) of RA No, 6770}, is a strong indication that the Ombudsman's ‘recommendation’ is not merely advisory in nature but is actually ‘mandatory within the bounds of law." (Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 173628, August 23, 2012) X was employed as a manager of METROBANK an falsification of commercial documents. X gave an uncoun: charge against him but is now alleging that he was only fo the contents. He asserts that the written statement was Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution, particularly the ri Tight to be informed of the first two rights, Are the right applicable in the context of private employment?” id was charged with estafa through 'seled written statement admitting the ced to sign the same without reading taken in violation of his rights under ight to remain silent, right to counsel and its guaranteed in custodial investigations ‘A: No, the constitutional protection against admissibility of admissions obtained in violation of Sec. 12. AL 3 is applicable only for custoial investigation and not applicable in inquiries in the content of private employment. Custodial investigation means any questioning initiated by law enforcement authostice siter 4 person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any manner, While it undisputed that X gave an uncounseled statement regarding the anomalous transactions done in his branch, itis clear that the questioning was not inated by a law enforcement authority but merely by an intemal affairs manager end that X was neither arrested nor restrained of his liberty in any significant ‘manner during the questioning. (Tanenggee v. People, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013) PAGE 2 OF 11"ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2018 JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS a sic Det CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS Q: X and Y owned lots adjacent to each other. Y without the latter's consent. X filed a complaint claiming that the acts of respondents violate violated by Y's installation of the surveillance ca installed surveillance cameras facing X's property for injunction and prayed for the issuance of TRO their right to privacy. Was X's right to privacy mmeras facing the former's property? ‘A: Yes. The right to privacy is enshrined in “to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to in which the public is not necessary con Privacy and protects them against the Sta ur Constitution and in our laws. It is the right of an individual live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters \cemned." The Bill of Rights guarantees the people's right to te's abuse of power. In this regard, the State recognizes the ‘ght of the people to be secure in their houses. No one, not even the State, except "incase of overriding Social need and then only under the stringent procedural safeguards,” can disturb them in the privacy of their homes. (Sps. Hing v. Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013) Q: X Corp. assails the constitutional the 20% discount for senior citizen: exercises of police power? lity of the IRRs issued by DSWD and DOF which provide that 's is a tax deduction and not a tax credit. Are the IRRs valid ‘es. Police power is the inherent power of the Property for public welfare, To be a valid exerci Objective and a lawiul method of accomplishing improve the welfare of senior citizens who are in State to regulate or to restrain the use of liberty and ise of police power, it must have a lawful subject or the goal. In this case, the 20% discount is intended to need of subsidy in purchasing basic commodities. The 20% discount has a legitimate purpose and has not been shown to be unreasonable, oppressive, or Confiscalory; therefore, i is a valid exercise of police power. (Manila Memorial Park v. Secretary of Welfare and Development and Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 175356, December 3, 2013) ‘Q: Mr. X, a Chinese national, has filed a petition for naturalization. In order to comply with Section 2, paragraph 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which requires that applicants “must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation”, Mr. X asserts the bare generalization that he is a “businessman/business manager”. Is this enough to comply with the requirement? ‘A: No. Naturalization proceedings are imbued with the highest public interests. Naturalization laws should bbe rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the goverment and ak in accordance with the an dignity, at this stage of our including the income of hismher of the time of the fling of his ugh to comply with this requirement. (Republic v. prevailing standard of living, and consistently with the demand of hum: civilization, the Courts should only consider the applicant's income (not spouse), and that the applicant's qualifications must be determined as petition, A bare assertion without any basis is not eno\ Kerry Lao Ong, G.R. No. 175430, June 18, 2012) PAGES OF 11NEO CENTRAL a ‘OPERATIONS 2018 JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS ISTIC oe Q: Y filed a Petition for Naturalization before the RTC. She was born in Zamboanga del Sur to Chinese parents. She never departed the Philippines since birth. Her primary, secondary and tertiary education were taken in Philippine schools. After graduating with a degree in BS Education, she practiced her teaching profession. She married a natural-born Filipino citizen. They have five children, all of whom studied in Philippine schools and are all professionals. She and her husband engaged in the retail business of and later on in milling/distributing rice, com and copra. RTC granted the petition. OSG argued that there was a failure to meet the income and public hearing requirements of CA 473. Should the Petition for Naturalization be granted? ‘A: Yes. Y met the income requirement under CA 473. She is a teacher by profession and has actually exercised her profession before she had to quit her teaching job to assume her family duties and take on her role as joint provider, together with her husband, in order to support her family. They were able to raise all five children, provided them with education, and have all become professionals and responsible citizens of the country. Certainly, this is proof enough of both husband and wife's lucrative trade. The public hearing requirement was also met. OSG had the opportunity to contest the qualifications of Y uring the initial hearing, however the OSG or Office of the Prosecutor failed to appear in said hearing OSG was also notified of the ex parte proceeding, but despite notice, again failed to appear. (Republic of the Philippines v. Azucena Batuigas, G.R. No. 183119, October 7, 2013) Q: X, a citizen of China, filed a Petition for Naturalization decreeing that he was born in Taiwan, both parents Chinese nationals, and that he is a holder of Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Residence. He studied in the Philippines and thereafter worked as General Manager of the company owned by his family. He is presently married to a Filipino citizen and has 2 children, all currently residing at Quezon City. The Republic filed an appeal contending that X may not become a naturalized Filipino citizen because 1) he does not have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; 2) he is not gainfully employed, as he merely worked in the business owned by his family and was merely given allowances by his parents for the daily expenses of his family; and 3) his income tax returns reveal that his actual monthly income differs from his monthly income as declared in his petition for naturalization, leading to the conclusion that either he is evading taxes or concealing the truth regarding his income. Is X entitled to become a naturalized Filipino citizen? ‘A: No. An applicant for naturalization must show full and complete compliance with the requirements of the naturalization law; otherwise his petition for naturalization will be denied. "Some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation” means “not only that the person having the employment gets ‘enough for his ordinary necessities in if. it must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus avoid one's becoming the object of charity or a public charge." His income should permit "him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort, in accordance with the prevailing standard of living, and Consistently with the demands of human dignity, at this stage of our civilization." Moreover, in determining the existence of a lucrative income, the courts should consider only the applicant's income: his or her ‘spouse's income should not be included in the assessment. Further, the applicant's qualifications must be determined as of the time of the filing of his petition. (Republic v. Huang Te Fu, G.R. No, 200983, March 18, 2015) PAGES OF 11£0 CENTRAL AE PERATIONS 2018 JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS —E—E—E—siCE EL CAST Q: Can a writ of amparo be issued without government acquiescence? ‘A: No. Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC provides that the wrt shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. The Rule, however, does not define extralegal kilings and enforced disappearances. Not long thereafter, Congress enacted R.A. 9851 which defines enforced or involuntary disappearances. From there, the elements constitute: + that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty: + that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or Political organization; ‘+ that it be followed by the State or political organizations refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and, * that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. in an amparo petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough. It is essential to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect authorization, support, or acquiescence of the government. (Navia v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, April 8, 2010) PAGES OF 11fENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2018 JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS Re _CUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASED’ LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS / ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Q: Outgoing Mayor X promoted 15 city hall employees, and regularized another 74 city hall employees, including the 52 petitioners after his successor, Mayor Y has already been elected. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) Field Office revoked and invalidated the appointments of X since it was in violation of CSC Resolution which provides that all mass appointments, whether original, transfer, reemployment, reappointment, promotion or demotion issued after the elections. shall be disapproved. Does the CSC have the authority to issue regulations prohibiting mass appointments at the local government level? ‘A: Yes. The Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government, has statutory authority to establish rules and regulations to promote efficiency and professionalism in the civil service. Presidential Decree No. 807, or the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines, provides for the powers of the Commission, including the power to issue rules and regulations and to review appointments. (Nazareno V. City of Dumaguete, G.R. No. 181559, October 2, 2009) Q. Several incumbent officials of a certain municipality filed a complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, imputing to X who is the municipal treasurer, several acts of unauthorized withdrawals from the municipality's bank without the required supporting documents and for failure to liquidate several cash advances. COA, upon examination affirmed said allegations which resulted to the decision rendered by the Deputy Ombudsman and was affirmed by the CA which found X guilty of grave misconduct and ordered her dismissal. Did the CA err in imposing the penalty of dismissal to X? ‘A: No, Misconduct generally means wrongful. improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, ‘obstinate or intentional purpose. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, @ dereliction of duty. Qualified by the term “gross,” it means conduct that is “out of all measure beyond allowance: flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.” In the case at bar, the evidence would show that in several instances, X failed to keep current and accurate records, repeatedly withdrew funds without the appropriate disbursement vouchers, failed to ensure timely liquidation of her cash advances and failed to account for funds in her custody. As treasurer of the ‘municipality, itis X's duty to perform her responsibilities diligently, faithfully, and efficiently. It behooves her to exercise the highest degree of care over the custody, management, and disbursement of municipal funds, (Hallasgo v. COA Regional Office, G.R. No. 171340, September 11, 2009) PAGE OF 11EO CENTRAL. Ae PeRATIONS, 2018 JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS Q: X was first appointed into the PNP service with the rank of Police Officer 1 (PO1) with temporary status. After taking and passing both the PNP Entrance Examination conducted by the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and Career Service Professional Examination- Computer Assisted Test (CSP-CAT) given by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Regional Director of the Police conferred upon X the permanent status of PO1. However, on the following year, the CSC Regional Office informed X about certain regularities relative to the CSP-CAT he took. It is alleged that the person in the picture posted on the Picture Sear Plan and its signature are different from the picture attached and contained signature in the Personal Data Sheet. On his part, X maintains that the CSC has no jurisdiction over him and assuming arguendo that it has, it is limited to mere appellate jurisdiction. Does the CSC have jurisdiction over the present case involving a police officer ‘A: Yes, the CSC has jurisdiction over the present case. The CSC, as the central personnel agency of the Government, is mandated to establish a career service, to strengthen the merit and rewards system, and to adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency and integrity in the civil service. The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Moreover, it has already been settled that the appellate power of the CSC will only apply when the subject of the administrative cases filed against erring employees is in connection with the duties and functions of their office. and not in cases where the acts of complainant arose from cheating in the civil service examinations, which is clearly the subject of the present case, (Capablanca v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 179370, November 19, 2009) Q: X was employed with DBP Chief of Division. After reorganization, she was appointed as Account Officer with Salary Grade 20. Upon passage of RA 6758, “The Compensation and Classification Act of 1989,” DBP was reorganized and was mandated to adopt a uniform set of Position titles in their plantitia similar to other Government Financial Institutions. X was appointed as Bank Executive Officer Il with Salary Grade 24. X contends that she was demoted. Is X correct? ‘A; No. A demotion in office, Le., the movement from one position to another involving the issuance of an appointment with diminution in duties, responsibilities, status or rank which may or may not involve a reduction in salary, is tantamount to removal, if no cause is shown for it. Consequently, before a demotion may be effected pursuant to a reorganization, the observance of the rules on bona fide abolition of public office is essential. In this case, there was a valid reorganization, DBP was not in bad faith; therefore, X's assignment as BEO Il was valid. There was no demotion because X was appointed to a position comparable to the one she previously occupied and there was also a salary increase, There being a valid reorganization, X's assignment is valid, (Bautista v. CSC, G.R. No. 185215, July 22, 2010) PAGET OF 11¥ NEO CENTRAL JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS Q: X filed a complaint for dam: le a reieeainst his schoo! for their unjustified refusal to release X's transcript of records. The school claims that X failed re exhaust administrative remedies. Does the /e remedies apply? doctrine of exhaustion of administratin remedies requires that where a remedy before an strative agency concerned must be given the opportunity to {an action is brought before the courts. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a ground for dismissal of the action ‘in the case, the doctrine does not apply PAGES OF 11gO CENTRAL GmoveTonsziis sus ice pet CASTILLO CASE DIGEST ELECTION LAW Q: X, a candidate for Municipal Mayor, secks to annul the proclamation of private respondent ¥ bY the COMELEC as the winner on the grounds of massive fraud, illegal proceedings, and tampered! falsified and obviously manufactured returns, considered to be a violation of Section 20, Republic Act (RA) No. 7166 and Section 39 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7859. X also claims that timely oral ‘objections were made, and the written Petition for Exclusion was filed with the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC). Is X correct? ‘A: No, Section 20 of RA 7166 and Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution 2962 provide that any candidate may contest the inclusion of an election return (ER) by making an oral objection at the time the ‘questioned retum is submitted for canvass; the objecting party shall also submit his objections in writing simultaneously with the oral objections. The BOC shall consider the written objections and opposition, if any, and summarily rule on the petition for exclusion. Any party adversely affected by such ruling must immediately inform the BOC if he intends to appeal such ruling. After the BOC rules on the contested retums and canvases all the uncontested retums, it shall suspend the canvass. Petitioner failed to timely make his objections to the contested ERs. Only one written petition for exclusion was filed for the five contested ERs and was done after a lapse of 12 hours after the ERs have been presented for canvass. (Safio v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 182221, Feb. 3, 2010) Q: X and Y were vice mayoralty candidates. During the canvassing of votes, Y opposed the inclusion of 25 election returns allegedly because there was a discrepancy between the number of votes stated in the said returns and those stated in the certificate of votes issued by the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI). Y filed his written objections and supporting evidence. The Municipal Board of Canvassers denied petitions for exclusion and found that there was no tampering. But COMELEC En Banc held that the use of the certificate of votes, based on affidavits of Y's poll watchers, establish tampering in the subject returns, thus ordered the exclusion of returns. Did COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in ordering the exclusion of the subject returns? A: Yes The certificates of votes are inadmissible to prove tampering because Y failed to comply with Section 17 of Electoral Reforms Law which requires that the certificate be duly authenticated by at least 2 ‘members of the board of election inspectors who issued the certificate. Also, it was highly irregular for COMELEC to outrightly exclude the subject returns resulting in the disenfranchisement of some 1,127 voters because the proper procedure, after COMELEC determined that there were discrepancies in the copies of subject retums, is not to exclude the retums, but follow Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). The COMELEC's constitutional duty is to give effect to the will of the electorate not to becloud their choice by defying the methods in the OEC designed to ascertain as far as practicable the true will of the sovereign people (Doromalv. Biron, G.R. No. 181809, Feb. 17, 2010) PAGE9 OF 11/,7eNEO CENTRAL a: X is a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship after he was naturalized as a citizen of the USA. Subsequently and in preparation for his plans to run for public office in the Philippines, he applied for repatriation under RA 9225 before the Consul General of the Philippines in the USA. He took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, and an Order of Approval of Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition was issued in his favor. He then executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship. In 2009, he filed his COC for mayoralty post for the May 2010 elections. A potition to disqualify and/or cancel COC was filed against him on the ground that remained a US citizen, as he continued to use his US passport for entry to and exit from the Philippines after executing the Affidavit of Renunciation. He won the May 2010 elections and was proclaimed the winning candidate. COMELEC First Division granted the petition, while the COMELEC En Banc reversed the COMELEC First Division resolution. In 2012, X filed his COC for the same position in the May 2013 elections. The Court annulled and set aside the COMELEC En Banc resolution and disqualified X from running for an elective position. X then executed an affidavit affirming his former Affidavit of Renunciation. X won the May 2013 elections. Is X qualified to run for public office? ‘A: No. X has not yet satisfied the twin requirements of Sec. 5 (2) of RA 9226 at the time he filed his COC for the May 2013 elections. Subsequent compliance does not suffice. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization abroad may now run for public office in the Philippines provided that they: (1) meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and (2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized to administer an oath prior to or at the time of filing of their COC. X failed to comply with the second requisite because his Affidavit of Renunciation was deemed withdrawn when he used his US passport after executing said affidavit. The affidavit affirming his former Affidavit of Renunciation, which was submitted after the filing of the COC, would not suffice for having been belatedly executed. (Amado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210764, August 18, 2005) PAGE 100F 11ve [peo eNtOM /sRoPeResOns JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO CASE DIGESTS LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT ‘a: X Is an operator of cockpits in a certain municipality. However, a municipal resolution was passed which ordered the conduct of public bidding for the operation of cockpit in the said municipality. Y won the said bid but since he failed to comply to some of the legal requirements, the Sanggunian temporarily allowed X to continue his cockpit operations but it was later discovered that X has been operating his cockpit in violation of the aforementioned municipal resolution which prompted Z, the mayor, to suspend the operations of X’s cockpit. Is X entitled to any award of damages? allowed to continue ‘A: No. X has no legal right to operate a cockpit. is to be noted that X has only been rents. hiis cockpit operations because Y, the winning bidder failed to comply with some of the legal requirem: Furthermore, assuming arguendo that he was able to get a business permit, the same did not give him & license to operate pursuant to Sec. 447(a)(3)(v) of the Local Government Code which provides that 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. Moreover, it is a well-settled doctrine in this jurisdiction 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. Given the foregoing, X has no right to any kind of damages. (Du v. Jayoma, G.R. No. 175042, April 23, 2012) Q: Can an incumbent vice-mayor act as a counsel in a case against a GOCC? : No. Section 90 (b) (1) of the Local Government Code prohibits members of the Sanggunian to appear in any court where any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party, and a GOCC is included in the term “instrumentality” according to Section 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987. Therefore, being a member of the Sanggunian as a vice-mayor, he is expressly prohibited from being a counsel in a case against a GOCC. (Republic v. Atly. Rambuyong, G.R. No. 167810, October 4, 2010) PAGE 11 OF 11