2/15/2017 G.R.No.

175042

TodayisWednesday,February15,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT ClipHighli
Baguio

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.175042April23,2012

DANILOA.DU,Petitioner,
vs.
VENANCIO R. JAYOMA, then Municipal Mayor of Mabini, Bohol, VICENTE GULLE, JR., JOVENIANO
MIANO, WILFREDO MENDEZ, AGAPITO VALLESPIN, RENE BUCIO, JESUS TUTOR, CRESCENCIO
BERNALES, EDGARDO YBANEZ, and REY PAGALAN, then members of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of
Mabini,Bohol,Respondents.

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

Intheabsenceofalegalrightinfavoroftheplaintiff,therecanbenocauseofaction.

ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari1underRule45oftheRulesofCourtassailstheDecision2 dated July 11,

2006andtheResolution3datedOctober4,2006oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.00492.

FactualAntecedents

OnJuly7,1988,theSangguniangBayanoftheMunicipalityofMabini,Bohol,enactedMunicipalOrdinanceNo.1,
series of 1988,4 requiring the conduct of a public bidding for the operation of a cockpit in the said municipality
everyfouryears.

For the period January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992, the winning bidder was Engr. Edgardo Carabuena.5
However,duetohisfailuretocomplywiththelegalrequirementsforoperatingacockpit,theSangguniangBayan
onDecember1,1988adoptedResolutionNo.127,seriesof1988,6authorizingpetitionerDaniloDutocontinue
hiscockpitoperationuntilthewinningbiddercomplieswiththelegalrequirements.7

On July 9, 1997, upon discovering that petitioner has been operating his cockpit in violation of Municipal
OrdinanceNo.1,seriesof1988,theSangguniangBayanpassedMunicipalResolutionNo.065,seriesof1997,8
suspendingpetitionerscockpitoperationeffectiveuponapproval.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 Bohol, a Petition for
Prohibition,12 docketed as Special Civil Action No. 4, against respondent mayor and nine members of the
SangguniangBayanofMabini,namely:VicenteGulle,Jr.,JovenianoMiano,WilfredoMendez,AgapitoVallespin,
Rene Bucio, Jesus Tutor, Crescencio Bernales, Edgardo Ybanez and Rey Pagalan. Petitioner prayed that a
preliminaryinjunctionand/oratemporaryrestrainingorderbeissuedtopreventrespondentsfromsuspendinghis
cockpitoperation.13PetitionerclaimedthathehasabusinesspermittooperateuntilDecember31,199714and
thattheMunicipalResolutionNo.065,seriesof1997,wasunlawfullyissuedasitdeprivedhimofdueprocess.15

IntheirAnswer,16respondentsinterposedthatundertheLocalGovernmentCode(LGC)of1991,thepowerto
authorize and license the establishment, operation and maintenance of a cockpit is lodged in the Sangguniang
Bayan17 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
ordinancesandresolutionsenactedbytheSangguniangBayan18andthatMunicipalResolutionNo.065,series

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_175042_2012.html 1/5
2/15/2017 G.R.No.175042

of1997,doesnotneedtobeapprovedbytheSangguniangPanlalawiganbecauseitisnotanordinancebutan
expressionofsentimentsoftheSangguniangBayanofMabini.19

On October 22, 1997, a Temporary Restraining Order20 was issued by the RTC enjoining respondents from
suspendingthecockpitoperationofpetitioneruntilfurtherordersfromthecourt.21

ThePetitionforProhibitionwaslateramended22toincludedamages,which

theRTCadmittedinanOrder23datedJanuary21,1998.
ClipHighli
RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt

OnOctober5,2004,theRTCrenderedaDecision24infavorofpetitioner,towit:

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
jointlyandseverallytopaythepetitioner:

1.TheamountofTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)intheconceptofmoraldamages

2.TheamountofSixtyThousandPesos(P60,000.00)intheconceptofunearnedincomeconsideringthe
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.BymathematicalcomputationP4,000.00x15amountstoP60,000.00

3.TheamountofTenThousandPesos(P10,000.00)asexemplarydamagestodeterotherpublicofficials
fromcommittingsimilaracts

4.TheamountofTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)asattorneysfees,andtopaythecost.

SOORDERED.25

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

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.26Hence,therebeingnorightinesse,petitionerisnotentitledtodamages.27Thus,thedispositiveportion
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.

SOORDERED.28

PetitionermovedforreconsiderationwhichwasdeniedbytheCAinaResolution29datedOctober4,2006.

Issue

Hence,theinstantpetitionraisingthecoreissueofwhethertheCAerredinfindingthatpetitionerisnotentitledto
damages.30

PetitionersArguments

PetitionercontendsthatMunicipalResolutionNo.065,seriesof1997,isultraviresasitwasmaliciously,hastily,
and unlawfully enforced by respondent mayor two days after its passage without the review or approval of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bohol.31 He alleges that respondents suspended the operation of his cockpit
withoutdueprocessandthatthesuspensionwaspoliticallymotivated.32Inaddition,heclaimsthatasaresultof
theincident,heisentitledtoactual,moralandexemplarydamagesaswellasattorneysfees.33

RespondentsArguments

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
petitionerscockpitoperationwaspursuanttolawandprevailingordinance.35

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_175042_2012.html 2/5
2/15/2017 G.R.No.175042

OurRuling

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

Acauseofactionisdefinedas"theactoromissionbywhichapartyviolatesarightofanother."36

Corollarily,theessentialelementsofacauseofactionare:(1)arightinfavoroftheplaintiff(2)anobligationon
thepartofthedefendanttorespectsuchrightand(3)anactoromissiononthepartofthedefendantinviolation
oftheplaintiffsrightwitharesultinginjuryordamagetotheplaintiffforwhichthelattermayfileanactionforthe
recoveryofdamagesorotherappropriaterelief.37
ClipHighli
Petitionerhasnolegalrighttooperateacockpit.

In this case, we find that petitioner has no cause of action against the respondents as he has no legal right to
operateacockpitinthemunicipality.UnderResolutionNo.127,seriesof1988,theSangguniangBayanallowed
him to continue to operate his cockpit only because the winning bidder for the period January 1, 1989 to
December31,1992failedtocomplywiththelegalrequirementsforoperatingacockpit.Clearly,underthesaid
resolution,petitionersauthoritytooperatethecockpitwouldendonDecember31,1992oruponcomplianceby
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
failedtomonitorthestatusofthecockpitintheirmunicipality.

And even if he was able to get a business permit from respondent mayor for the period January 1, 1997 to
December31,1997,thisdidnotgivehimalicensetooperateacockpit.UnderSection447(a)(3)(v)oftheLGC,it
is the Sangguniang Bayan which is empowered to "authorize and license the establishment, operation and
maintenanceofcockpits,andregulatecockfightingandcommercialbreedingofgamecocks."Consideringthatno
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
ResolutionNo.065,seriesof1997.Asthechiefexecutiveofthemunicipalgovernment,respondentmayorwas
dutyboundtoenforcethesuspensionoftheoperationofpetitionerscockpitpursuanttothesaidResolution.

ItbearsstressingthatnoevidencewaspresentedtoshowthatuponreviewbytheSangguniangPanlalawiganof
Bohol, the resolution was declared invalid or that the resolution was issued beyond the powers of the
SangguniangBayanormayor.Jurisprudenceconsistentlyholdsthatanordinance,orinthiscasearesolution,is
"presumedvalidintheabsenceofevidenceshowingthatitisnotinaccordancewiththelaw."38Hence,wefind
noreasontoinvalidateMunicipalResolutionNo.065,seriesof1997.

Licensetooperateacockpitisamereprivilege.

Inaddition,itiswellenshrinedinourjurisprudencethat"alicense

authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of which the holder may not be deprived
withoutdueprocessoflaw,butamereprivilegethatmayberevokedwhenpublicinterestssorequire."39Having
saidthat,petitionersallegationthathewasdeprivedofdueprocesshasnolegtostandon.

Petitionernotentitledtodamages

Withoutanylegalrighttooperateacockpitinthemunicipality,petitionerisnotentitledtodamages.Injuryalone
does not give petitioner the right to recover damages he must also have a right of action for the legal wrong
inflictedbytherespondents.40Weneednotbelaborthat"inorderthatthelawwillgiveredressforanactcausing
damage,theremustbedamnumetinjuriathatactmustbenotonlyhurtful,butwrongful."41 1 w p h i1

Alltold,wefindnoerroronthepartoftheCAindismissingpetitionerscase.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 11, 2006 and the Resolution
datedOctober4,2006oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.00492areherebyAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_175042_2012.html 3/5
2/15/2017 G.R.No.175042

RENATOC.CORONA
Chairperson
ChiefJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
ClipHighli
CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
DecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourts
Division.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

1Rollo,pp.3107withAnnexes"A"to"J1"inclusive.

2 Id. at 8593 penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale and concurred in by Associate Justices
VicenteLYapandRomeoF.Barza.

3Id.at104105pennedbyAssociateJusticeArsenioJ.MagpaleandconcurredinbyAssociateJustices
RomeoF.BarzaandAntonioL.Villamor.
4Id.at40.

5Id.at86.

6Id.at41.

7Id.at86.

8Records,p.8.

9Rollo,pp.8687.

10Records,p.7.

11Rollo,pp.8788.

12Id.at2933.

13Id.at32.

14Id.at29.

15Id.at3132.

16Id.at3439.

17Id.at35.

18Id.

19Id.

20Records,p.54.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_175042_2012.html 4/5
2/15/2017 G.R.No.175042
21Rollo,p.88.

22Id.at4450.

23Id.at51.

24Id.at5261pennedbyExecutivePresidingJudgePatsitaSarmientoGamutan.

25Id.at61.
ClipHighli
26Id.at9192.

27Id.

28Id.at9293.

29Id.at104105.

30Id.at146147and169.

31Id.at148.

32Id.

33Id.at148149.

34Id.at169172.

35Id.

36RulesofCourt,Rule2,Section2.

37Soloil,Inc.v.PhilippineCoconutAuthority,G.R.No.174806,August11,2010,628SCRA185,190.

38JudgeLeynesv.CommissiononAudit,463Phil.557,580(2003).

39Pedrov.ProvincialBoardofRizal,56Phil.123,132(1931).

40Tanv.Perea,492Phil.200,210(2005).

41Id.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_175042_2012.html 5/5