G.R. No. 190289 . January 17, 2018.
THE CITY OF BACOLOD, HON. MAYOR EVELIO R. LEONARDIA, ATTY. ALLAN L. ZAMORA and ARCH. LEMUEL D. REYNALDO, in their personal capacities and in their capacities as Officials of the City of Bacolod, Petitioners, vs. PHUTURE VISIONS CO., INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Phuture Visions Co., Inc. applied for a Mayor’s Permit to operate bingo games at SM City Bacolod Mall. It secured a provisional Grant of Authority from PAGCOR and a lease award from SM Prime. On February 19, 2007, the City’s Permits and Licensing Division issued a claim slip for the permit, set for release on March 16, 2007. However, Phuture commenced operations on March 2, 2007. The following day, the City Legal Officer padlocked the outlet pursuant to a Closure Order dated March 2, 2007, citing City Tax Ordinance No. 93-001, which prohibits operating a business without a permit and payment of fees.
Petitioners presented a different version. They alleged Phuture’s application was for a renewal of a permit for “Professional Services, Band/Entertainment Services” at a different address, not for bingo operations at SM Bacolod. They claimed discrepancies in the application, including that it was notarized before the company’s Articles of Incorporation were amended to include bingo as a primary purpose, and that Phuture failed to pay the correct permit fees. The claim slip was deemed an oversight. During summary hearings, the City offered a Mayor’s Permit for “Professional Services,” but Phuture’s counsel refused it.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of the Petition for Mandamus and granting the writ to compel the issuance of a business permit for Phuture’s bingo operations.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of the Petition for Mandamus. Mandamus is a remedy to compel a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty. For it to lie, the applicant must have a clear legal right to the act demanded, and the respondent must have a corresponding ministerial duty to perform it. The issuance of a Mayor’s Permit is not a ministerial duty but a discretionary act, involving the exercise of judgment to determine if an applicant has complied with all legal requirements, including pertinent ordinances.
Here, Phuture had no clear legal right to the permit. The evidence showed it commenced business without securing the required permit, violating City Tax Ordinance No. 93-001. The claim slip was not the permit itself but merely an acknowledgment of application. The City correctly found deficiencies, including a discrepancy between the business applied for and the business intended to operate, and potential non-payment of the correct fees. The Closure Order was a valid exercise of police power to regulate businesses and ensure compliance with local laws. Since the City’s action in denying the permit and ordering closure was grounded on legal violations, mandamus cannot compel the performance of a discretionary act that would result in sanctioning an illegal operation.