ROBINSON V. CASIÑO v.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, GINGOOG GALLERA, four (4) members voting for the amendment, while four (4) voted against,
INC., represented by its President and Manager, LINDY L. DE LARA
December 2, 1991 | Regalado, J. | Local Legislation
Digester: Batac, Jeffrey
SUMMARY: Casiño's license to operate a cockpit in Gingoog City, Misamis Oriential
was revoked when the area it was located in (Block 125) was classified as a
residential area by virtue of Resolution No. 49. Said zoning ordinance imposed the
requirement that any amendment thereto must be concurred in by at least 3/4 of all
members of the Sanggunian. Subsequently, the Sanggunian enacted Resolution No.
378, which reclassified Block 125 into a recreational zone. This latest resolution was
concurred in by only a majority of the Sanggunian (5/9). Because of this
reclassification, Casiño was able to apply for and be granted permits from the mayor
to operate a cockpit. Gingoog Gallera, Inc. challenged the validity of Casiño's permits
to operate, claiming that Resolution No. 378 was invalid for having been enacted
without the required 3/4 votes from the Sanggunian. Casiño countered by arguing that
the 3/4 votes requirement under the subject ordinance was ultra vires because the
city charter of Gingoog and the LGC itself imposed a mere majority vote requirement
for local legislation. The RTC, CA, and SC all held for private respondent and ruled
that the permits issued to Casiño were null and void for having been issued based on
an invalid ordinance. Block 125, for all intents and purposes, was still a residential
area where no cockpits may be built.
DOCTRINE: It is legally permissible, as exceptions to the general provisions on
measures covered by city charters and the Local Government Code, that the vote
requirement in certain ordinances may be specially provided for.
Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one
which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former,
the particular enactment must be operative, and the general statement must be taken
to affect only such cases within its language as are not within the provisions of the
particular enactment.
FACTS:
 Robinson Casiño was the owner of the Don Romulo Rodriguez Coliseum, a
cockpit, located on Block 125 at the corner of Lugod and Jadol Streets, Gingoog
City, Misamis Oriental. He was previously granted a license to operate under
Sections 2285 to 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code.
 Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Gingoog enacted Resolution No.
49, Code Ordinance, Series of 1984, which classified certain areas of the city,
including the cockpit's location at Block 125, as residential zones. The
classification led to the cancellation of Casiño'slicense to operate the cockpit.
 Article 10, Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49 provided that changes in the zoning
ordinance as a result of the review by the Local Review Committee shall be
treated as an amendment provided that any amendment to the zoning ordinance
or provision thereof shall be carried out through a resolution of three fourths
vote of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
 On August 13, 1985, Resolution No. 378, Code Ordinance, Series of 1985,
reclassified Block 125 as within the recreational zone, thus amending Resolution
No. 49. Nine (9) members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod participated, with
and with one (1) abstention. The vice-mayor, as presiding officer, broke the
deadlock by voting for the amendment.
 When Resolution No. 378 was transmitted to then City Mayor Miguel Paderanga
for approval, he returned the same to the Sangguniang Panlungsod within ten
days, without any action, stating that his approval thereof was not necessary
since it did not involve a disposition of city government funds, as provided by
Section 180 of the Local Government Code and Section 14 of the charter of
Gingoog City.
 By virtue of Resolution No. 378, the succeeding city mayor, Arturo S. Lugod,
issued to Casiño the permit to operate a cockpit dated April 2, 1986, which was
renewed by another permit issued on January 5, 1987.
 Gingoog Gallera, Inc. protested the operation of the cockpit before the Philippine
Gamefowl Commission (PGC). The protest was founded on the fact that no
certificate of registration had as yet been issued by the PGC, although city
mayor's permits were issued to Casiño.
 On April 11, 1986, the PGC, through OIC Pacifico L. Orog sent a telegram to the
Station Commander of Gingoog City to suspend in the meantime the operation of
the cockpit. On April 24, 1986, the PGC eventually sent a telegram to the city
mayor to stop any cockfight in the Coliseum in view of its failure to register with
the PGC.
 Subsequently, Gingoog Gallera filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with
preliminary injunction before the Gingoog City RTC against Casiño on the ground
that Resolution No. 378, purportedly amending zoning Ordinance No. 49, is
invalid for failing to comply with the 3/4 votes requirement from the Sanggunian
members. It asserted that the classification of the cockpit's site as still within the
residential zone of Gingoog City was accordingly maintained and unchanged,
thereby rendering the mayor's permits issued to Casiño as null and void for being
in violation of Section 6 of the Rules and Regulations of the PGC.
 RTC: Ruled that the mayor's permits were null and void. It likewise ordered
Casiño and all persons representing him or acting in his behalf from further
operating the cockpit in question.
 CA: Affirmed RTC.
RULING: Petition denied. CA affirmed.
Whether Resolution No. 49 classifying Block 125 as a residential zone was
validly amended by Resolution No. 378, which reclassified Block 125 as a
recreational zone. – NO.
Whether the mayor's permits issued to Casiño by virtue of Resolution No. 378
were null and void. – YES.
Whether the 3/4 votes requirement imposed by Resolution No. 49 for any
amendment thereto (as opposed to the majority vote requirement under the
LGC) is valid. – YES.
 Casiño: Resolution No. 378 is valid because the same was passed by the
Sanggunian by a majority of five (5) affirmative votes as against four (4) negative
votes. He contends that the 3/4 vote requirement under Section 6.44, Resolution
No. 49, aside from its being merely a formal requirement, is an enactment of the
sanggunian which is ultra vires. After all, the the charter of the City of Gingoog
and the LGC require only a majority for the enactment of an ordinance.
 SC: Resolution No. 49 cannot be validly amended by Resolution No. 378 without  The PGC has the power not of control but only of review and supervision. This
complying with the categorical requirement of a three-fourths vote incorporated in power was validly exercised by the PGC over Casiño's cockpit when it sought to
the very same ordinance sought to be amended. stop the latter's operations through the local officials. It did not whimsically order
the suspension and the consequent stoppage of the cockpit's operations. Rather,
General law vs. particular enactment PGC only exercised its power of review over the acts performed by the local
 The pertinent provisions in the city charter of Gingoog and the LGC obviously are authorities in relation to or which affect the exercise of its functions.
of general application and embrace a wider scope or subject matter. In the  Review is a reconsideration or re-examination for purposes of correction. The
enactment of ordinances in general, the application of the aforementioned laws power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessary to correct the
cannot be disputed. acts of the subordinate and to see to it that he performs his duties in accordance
 However, Section 6.44 of Resolution No. 49 regarding amendments thereto is a with law.
specific and particular provision for said ordinance and explicitly provides for a  The PGC did this by bringing to the attention of the local authorities the non-
different number of votes. Where there is in the same statute a particular compliance by Casiño with the rules involved in this case, which action was
enactment and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would reasonable and necessary in the discharge of its regulatory functions. The PGC
include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be may, for that purpose and as it did here, indicate its disapproval of the acts of the
operative, and the general statement must be taken to affect only such cases local officials concerned to stress and perform its role with respect to the
within its language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment. regulation of cockpits.
 In the instant case, although the general law on the matter requires a mere
majority, the higher requisite vote in Resolution No. 49 shall govern since
municipal authorities are in a better position to determine the evils sought to be NOTES:
prevented by the inclusion or incorporation of particular provisions in enacting a
particular statute and, therefore, to pass the appropriate ordinance to attain the
main object of the law.
 This more stringent requirement on the necessary votes for amendments to
Resolution No. 49 apparently forestalled the apprehended contingency in an
apparent attempt to get rid of this legal stumbling block (the prohibition against a
cockpit in a residential zone under Proclamation 49). Withal, it is legally
permissible, as exceptions to the general provisions on measures covered by city
charters and the Local Government Code, that the vote requirement in certain
ordinances may be specially provided for, as in the case of Section 6.44 of
Resolution No. 49, instead of the usual majority vote.
 All told, Block 125, where the cockpit is located, remains classified as a
residential area. Therefore, the operation of a cockpit therein is prohibited.

Whether the registration certificate issued to Casiño by the PGC is valid. – NO.
 While it is true that the task of granting licenses to operate cockpits is lodged with
City and Municipal Mayor with the concurrence of their respective Sanggunians,
this power is not absolute. It must be noted that certain requirements must be
complied with before a license may issue. First, the rules and regulations
promulgated by the PGC in connection with the operation of cockpits must be
observed. And second, that there must be concurrence of the Sanggunians.
 A mayor's permit/ license is a condition precedent to the issuance of the PGC
Registration Certificate. But in the case at bar, the city mayor's permits issued to
Casiño were null and void as they were granted pursuant to Resolution No. 578
which never took effect because of non-compliance with the procedure
prescribed in Resolution No. 49. And because of the nullity of the Mayor's
permits, the Registration Certificate No. C-86816 issued to Casiño is likewise null
and void. The spring cannot rise higher than its source.

Does the PGC have the power of control and supervision over the operation of
cockpits? – SUPERVISION ONLY.