GR 192679; (October, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 192679. October 17, 2016.
ANTONIO ESCOTO, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio Escoto and a co-promoter organized a cockfighting derby within the Subic Bay Freeport Zone under a permit from the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). Respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) advised the resort to desist, asserting cockfighting was outside its authorized operations. The promoters sued for injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing PAGCOR had no regulatory power over cockfighting in the Freeport and that SBMA’s permit sufficed. The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling the promoters were not real parties in interest, had no clear legal right, and that the required cockfighting license must come from the local government unit, not SBMA. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to PAGCOR based on a pre-trial stipulation.
The promoters appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In their appellant’s brief, they assigned errors claiming the case was moot and alternatively that the RTC erred in ruling SBMA lacked authority, and in awarding attorney’s fees. PAGCOR moved to dismiss the appeal, contending it raised only questions of law proper for a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, not an ordinary appeal to the CA.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the appeal for raising only pure questions of law?
RULING
No, the CA did not err. The dismissal was correct. The determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law rests within the sound discretion of the appellate court. The CA properly examined the assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief and correctly characterized them as purely legal. The first assigned error questioned the RTC’s legal interpretation of SBMA’s authority under Republic Act No. 7227 versus that of local governments under the Cockfighting Law. The second challenged the award of attorney’s fees, which was rendered a legal issue because the parties had stipulated to it during pre-trial, transforming it into an agreed-upon liquidated damage requiring no further factual proof. Under Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the RTC to the CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed. The petitioner’s attempt to raise new factual issues for the first time before the Supreme Court is barred by due process. The CA’s dismissal is affirmed.