G.R. No.

L-12727 February 29, 1960

MANILA JOCKEY CL!, INC., petitioner-appellant,
vs.
GAME" AN# AM"EMEN$" !OAR#, E$ AL., respondents-appellees.
%&ILI%%INE RACING CL!, INC., petitioner-intervenor-appellant.
!ARRERA, J.'
This is a petition for declaratory relief filed by petitioner Manila Jockey Club, Inc., in the Court of First Instance Manila (Civil Case No. !"#$%, in &hich
the 'hilippine (acin) Club, Inc., intervened as party in interest &ith leave of court, prayin) that *ud)+ent be rendered a)ainst respondents ,a+es and
-+use+ents .oard (,-.%, 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice ('C/0%, and 12ecutive /ecretary Fortunato de 3eon4
(a% Interpretin) (epublic -cts Nos. 56 and !75" in such a +anner that the 5 /undays unreserved for charitable institutions and therefore
belon)in) to the private racin) clubs under /ection $ of (epublic -ct No. 56 continue to pertain to said private entities, and that the 8
additional s&eepstakes races authori9ed under (epublic -ct No. !75" should be held on 8 of the !" /aturdays not reserved for any private
entity or particular charitable institution under /ection $ of (epublic -ct No. 56, or on any other day of the &eek besides /unday, /aturday
and le)al holiday:
(b% ;oldin) that respondent 'C/0 does not have the ri)ht or po&er to appropriate or use the race tracks and e<uip+ent of petitioner &ithout its
consent, nor can respondents co+pel petitioner to so allo& such use of its race tracks and e<uip+ent under pain of havin) its license revoked.
(espondents duly filed their respective ans&ers to said petition and the case &as heard. -fter hearin), the court, on July 7, !67#, rendered a decision
&hich, in part, reads4
The court does not dee+ it necessary to rule on the deprivation of property of the petitioner and the intervenor &ithout due process of la&, as
feared by the+, because as they have stated, the 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice is usin) their pre+ises and e<uip+ent under separate
contracts of lease voluntarily and &illin)ly entered into by the parties upon pay+ent of a correspondin) rental. There is therefore no
deprivation of property &ithout due process of la&.
=herefore, the court is of the opinion and so holds that once a +onth on a /unday not reserved for the -nti-Tuberculosis /ociety, the =hite
Cross and other charitable institutions by /ection $ of (epublic -ct No. 56, the 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice is authori9ed to hold
one re)ular s&eepstakes dra& and races, pursuant to /ection 6 of (epublic -ct No. !75", thus reducin) the nu+ber of /undays &hich +ay be
alloted to private entities by the ,a+es and -+use+ents .oard. . . .
Fro+ this *ud)+ent, petitioner and intervenor interposed the present appeal.
The issue is the proper place+ent of the si2 (8% additional racin) days )iven to the 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice, in virtue of (epublic -ct No.
!75", approved on June !8, !678.
The authori9ed racin) days specifically desi)nated and distributed in /ection $ of (epublic -ct No. 56, the basic la& on horse racin) in the 'hilippines,
as later a+ended by (epublic -ct No. 6>, are as follo&s4
A. Sundays:
(1) For the Philippine Anti-Tuberculosis Society .................. 12 Sundays
(2) For the Philippine Charity Sweepstaes !""ice (PCS!) . # Sundays
($) For the %hite Cross& 'nc. ............................................. ( Sundays
(() For the )rand *erby +ace o" the Philippine Anti-Tuberculosis
Society ........................................................ 1 Sunday
Total ................................................................ 2$ Sundays
(,) For pri-ate indi-iduals and entities duly licensed by the )A.& other
Sundays not reser-ed under this Act& as /ay be deter/ined by the
)A. ........................................... 20 Sundays
or $1 "or 2eap years
Total "or the year .................... ,2 Sundays
or ,$ "or leap years.
.. Saturdays:
(1) For the Philippine Anti-Tuberculosis Society ..... 12 Saturdays
(2) For the %hite Cross& 'nc. ....................................... ( Saturdays
($) For pri-ate 'ndi-iduals and entities duly licensed by )A. and as /ay be
deter/ined by it .................................. 2( Saturdays
(() For races authori3ed by the President "or charitable& relie"& or ci-ic
purposes other than the particular charitable institutions na/ed abo-e& all
other Saturdays not reser-ed "or the latter .................... 12 Saturdays
Total ................................................................ ,2 Saturdays
C. Legal Holidays4 -ll, e2cept Thursday and Friday of the ;oly =eek, July $th and ?ece+ber 5th, have been reserved for private individuals
and entities duly licensed by the ,-..
-s stated, (epublic -ct No. !75" increased the s&eepstakes dra& and races of the 'C/0 to t&elve, but &ithout specifyin) the days on &hich they are to
be run. To acco++odate these additional races, the ,-. resolved to reduce the nu+ber of /undays assi)ned to private individuals and entities by si2.
-ppellants protested, contendin) that the said increased should be taken fro+ the !" /aturdays reserved to the 'resident, for charitable, relief, or civic
purposes, or should be assi)ned to any other day of the &eek besides /unday, /aturday, and le)al holiday.
-ppellants@ contention cannot be sustained. /ection $ (epublic -ct No. 56, as a+ended by (epublic -ct No. 6>, by e2press ter+s, specifically reserved
" /undays and !8 /aturdays for the 'hilippine -nti-Tuberculosis /ociety, the =hite Cross, Inc. and the 'C/0, and !" /aturdays to the 'resident for
other charitable, relief, or civic purposes. These days can not be disposed of by the ,-. &ithout authority of la&. -s to the re+ainin) racin) days, the la&
provides4
/1C. $. Racing days.A'rivate individuals and entities duly licensed by the Co++ission on (aces (no& ,-.% +ay hold horse races on
/undays not reserved under this -ct, on t&enty-four /aturdays as +ay be deter+ined by the said Co++ission (,-.%, and on le)al holidays,
e2cept Thursday and Friday of ;oly =eek, July fourth, co++only kno&n as Independence ?ay, and ?ece+ber thirtieth, co++only kno&n as
(i9al ?ay.
It is clear fro+ the above-<uoted provision that appellants have no vested ri)ht to the unreserved /undays, or even to the "$ /aturdays (e2cept, perhaps, on
the holidays%, because their holdin) of races on these days is +erely per+issive, sub*ect to the licensin) and deter+ination by the ,-.. =hen, therefore,
(epublic -ct No. !75" &as enacted increasin) by si2 (8% the s&eepstakes dra& and races, but &ithout specifyin) the days for holdin) the+, the ,-. had
no alternative e2cept to +ake roo+ for the additional races, as it did, for+ a+on) the only available racin) days unreserved by any la& A the /undays on
&hich the private individuals and entities have been per+itted to hold their races, sub*ect to licensin) and deter+ination by the ,-..
It is su))ested that the ,-. should have chosen any &eek days or /aturday afternoons. In the first place, &eek days are out of the <uestion. The la& does
not authori9e the holdin) of horse races &ith bettin) on &eek days (/ee -rticle !6> of the (evised 'enal Code%. /econdly, s&eepstakes races have al&ays
been held on /undays. .esides, it is not possible to hold the+ on /aturday afternoons as, it is clai+ed, a &hole day is necessary for the +i2in) of the
s&eepstakes balls, the dra&in) of &innin) s&eepstakes nu+bers, and the runnin) of the s&eepstakes races. .e that as it +ay, since the la& has )iven
certain a+ount of discretion to the ,-. in deter+inin) and allocatin) racin) days not specifically reserved, and since the court does not find that a )rave
abuse of this discretion has been co++itted, there see+s to be no reason, le)al or other&ise, to set aside the resolution of the ,-..
Further+ore, appellants contend that even )rantin) that the si2 (8% additional s&eepstakes races should be run on /undays, yet if they are held on a club
race day, the ,-. should only insert the+ in the club races and not )iven the &hole day to the 'C/0, to the e2clusion of appellants. In support of this
contention, the follo&in) <uotation fro+ the debate in the ;ouse of (epresentatives before votin) on ;ouse .ill No. 7#", &hich beca+e (epublic -ct
No. !75", is cited4
Mr. -.131?-. If there are no +ore a+end+ents, I +ove that &e vote on the +easure.
Mr. M-(C0/. Mr. /peaker, before &e proceed to vote on this bill, I &ant to +ake it of record that it is the clear intention of the House to
increase by two the ten regular and special Sweepstakes races making it all in all, twelve, and that in cases where a sweepstakes race falls in a
club race days the Sweepstakes races should be inserted in the club race.
Mr. -.131?-. The )entle+an fro+ Ilocos Norte is correct. . . . (t.s.n., 'roceedin)s in ;ouse of (epresentatives, Con)ress, May !#, !678:
e+phasis supplied.%
-ppellants cite in their briefs a nu+ber of authorities sustainin) the vie& that in the interpretation of statutes susceptible of &idely differin) constructions,
le)islative debates and e2planatory state+ents by +e+bers of the le)islature +ay be resorted to, to thro& li)ht on the +eanin) of the &ords used in the
statutes. Bpon the other hand, the appellees, like&ise, <uote in their briefs other authorities to the effect that state+ents +ade by the individual +e+bers of
the le)islature as to the +eanin) of provisions in the bill subse<uently enacted into la&, +ade durin) the )eneral debate on the bill on the floor of each
le)islative house, follo&in) its presentation by a standin) co++ittee, are )enerally held to be in ad+issable as an aid in construin) the statute. 3e)islative
debates are e2pressive of the vie&s and +otives of individual +e+bers and are not safe )uides and, hence, +ay not be resorted to in ascertainin) the
+eanin) and purpose of the la&+akin) body. It is i+possible to deter+ine &ith certainty &hat construction &as put upon an act by the +e+bers of the
le)islative body that passed the bill, by resortin) to the speeches of the +e+bers thereof. Those &ho did not speak, +ay not have a)reed &ith those &ho
did: and those &ho spoke, +i)ht differ fro+ each other.
!
In vie& of these conflictin) authorities, no appreciable reliance can safely be placed on any of the+. It is to be noted in the specific case before us, that
&hile Con)ress+en Marcos and -beleda &ere, ad+ittedly, of the vie& that the additional s&eepstakes races +ay be inserted in the club races, still there is
nothin) in (epublic -ct No. !75", as it &as finally enacted, &hich &ould indicate that such an understandin) on the part of these t&o +e+bers of the
3o&er ;ouse of Con)ress &ere received the sanction or confor+ity of their collea)ues, for the la& is absolutely devoid of any such indication. This is,
therefore, not a case &here a doubtful &ordin) is sou)ht to be interpreted: rather, if &e adopt appellants@ theory, &e &ould be supplyin) so+ethin) that
does not appear in the statute. It is pertinent to observe here that, as pointed out by one of appellants@ o&n cited authorities,
"
in the interpretation of a le)al
docu+ent, especially a statute, unlike in the interpretation of an ordinary &ritten docu+ent, it is not enou)h to obtain infor+ation to the intention or
+eanin) of the author or authors, but also to see &hether the intention or +eanin) has been e2pressed in such a &ay as to )ive it le)al effect and validity.
In short, the purpose of the in<uiry, is not only to kno& &hat the author +eant by the lan)ua)e he used, but also to see that the lan)ua)e used sufficiently
e2presses that +eanin). The le)al act, so to speak, is +ade up of t&o ele+ents A an internal and an e2ternal one: it ori)inates in intention and is perfected
by e2pression. Failure of the latter +ay defeat the for+er. The follo&in), taken fro+ 76 Corpus Juris !5!#, is in the line &ith this theory4
The intention of the le)islature to &hich effect +ust be )iven is that e2pressed in the statute and the courts &ill not in<uire into the +otives
&hich influence the le)islature, or individual +e+bers, in votin) for its passa)e: nor indeed as to the intention of the drafts+an, or the
le)islature, so far as it has been e2pressed in the act. /o, in ascertainin) the +eanin) of a statute the court &ill not be )overned or influenced by
the vie&s or opinions of any or all +e+bers of the le)islature or its le)islative co++ittees or any other persons.
Bpon the other hand, at the ti+e of the enact+ent of (epublic -ct No. !75" in June, !678, the lon), continuous, and unifor+ practice &as that all
s&eepstakes dra&s and races &ere held on /undays and durin) the &hole day. =ith this back)round, &hen Con)ress chose not to specify in e2press ter+s
ho& the additional s&eepstakes dra&s and races &ould be held, it is safe to conclude that it did not intend to disturb the then prevailin) situation and
practice.
C0n the principle of conte+poraneous e2position, co++on usa)e and practice under the statute, or a course of conduct indicatin) a particular undertakin)
of it, &ill fre<uently be of )reat value in deter+inin) its real +eanin), especially &here the usa)e has been ac<uired in by all parties concerned and has
e2tended over a lon) period of ti+e: . . . (76 C. J. !5"%.
3ike&ise, the lan)ua)e of (epublic -ct No. !75" in authori9in) the increase, clearly speaks of re)ular s&eepstakes dra&s and races. If the intention of
Con)ress &ere to authori9e additional s&eepstakes dra&s only &hich could, ad+ittedly, be inserted in the club races, the la& &ould not have included
regular races: and since re)ular s&eepstakes races &ere specifically authori9ed, and it &ould be confusin), inconvenient, if not i+possible to +i2 these
s&eepstakes races &ith the re)ular club races all on the sa+e day (and it has never been done before%, the conclusion see+s inevitable that the additional
s&eepstakes dra&s and races &ere intended to be held on a &hole day, separate and apart fro+ the club races.
-ppellants@ contention that to co+pel the+ to per+it the 'C/0 to use their pre+ises and e<uip+ent a)ainst their &ill &ould constitute deprivation of
property &ithout due process of la&, deserves no serious consideration. -s the lo&er court has found, every ti+e the 'C/0 uses appellants@ pre+ises and
e<uip+ent, they are paid rentals in accordance &ith the ter+s of separate contracts of lease e2istin) bet&een the+ and the 'C/0.
The decision appealed fro+, bein) in consonance &ith the above findin)s and considerations of this Court, the sa+e is hereby affir+ed, &ith costs a)ainst
the appellants. /o ordered.
Paras, C. ., !eng"on, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, . !. L., #ndencia, and $utierre" %avid, ., concur.
Manila Jockey Club Inc. v. Games and Amusement Board
Case No. 164
No. L-12727 (February 29, 1960)
Chapter III, Page 114, Footote No.190
F!C"#$
The Petitioner states that they are entitled to certain Sundays unreserved for
any event and that reducin the number of said days is an infrinement of their riht.
Petitioner relies on the strenth of Sec. ! of "A #$%& as amended by "A %'#& that the
unreserved Sundays may be used by (rivate individuals or rou(s duly licensed by
the Games and Amusement Board )GAB*. "A +,$- increased the s.ee(stakes dra.
and races to +- but .ithout s(ecifyin the days on .hich they are to be run& the GAB
reduced the number of racin days assined to (rivate individuals and entities by si/.
I##%&$
012 the Petitioner has a riht to the unreserved days.
'&L($
2o. 3rom the .ordin of the "A #$% and "A %'#& it is clear that the te/t is
(ermissive and is not mandatory. The (rivate individuals and entities are not entitled
to the use of such days. Petitioner4s claim that the intent of the leislature .as to
allo. the races and s.ee(stakes to be run on the same day are untenable. The
.ords of members of Conress are not re(resentative of the entire 5ouse of
"e(resentatives or Senate. Also& Petitioner4s claim that to allo. the PCS6 to use their
e7ui(ment and (ro(erty is de(rivation of (ro(erty is also untenable because they
have a rental areement .ith the PCS6.