G.R. No. L-24465 February 28, 1977
MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., petitioner-appellee, vs. JUSTINIANO N. MONTANO, JR., ALFREDO LOZANO, JOSE ROXAS, in their capacities as Chairman and Members, respectively, of the Games and Amusements Board and CALIXTO O. ZALDIVAR, in his capacity as Acting Executive Secretary, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

On June 18, 1964, petitioner Manila Jockey Club, Inc. applied with the Games and Amusements Board (GAB) for a permit to conduct horse racing on June 24, 1964. This date had been declared a Special Public Holiday in Manila for its foundation day (“Araw ng Maynila”) via Presidential Proclamation No. 257. The GAB, however, denied the application. It acted upon a letter from Acting Executive Secretary Calixto O. Zaldivar, which opined that under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 309, as amended, horse races could only be held on legal holidays prescribed by law for the entire country, not on special public holidays for a particular locality like Manila.
Dissatisfied, the Manila Jockey Club filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila. It argued it was lawfully entitled to the permit, contending that the special public holiday qualified under the statute. The lower court granted the preliminary injunction and, after submission of memoranda, rendered a decision on February 17, 1965, declaring the GAB’s denial as a grave abuse of discretion and nullifying its actions. The respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, appealed this decision directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal presents a justiciable controversy or has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot and academic. The legal logic is grounded on the principle that courts will not adjudicate cases where no actual, live controversy exists between the parties. The core relief sought by the petitioner was to compel the issuance of a permit to conduct horse races on the specific date of June 24, 1964. That date had long passed by the time the Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1977. Furthermore, the substantive law upon which the entire suit was based, Republic Act No. 309, had been repealed by Presidential Decree No. 420 on March 20, 1974. This decree abolished the Games and Amusements Board and created the Philippine Racing Commission, altering the governing legal framework entirely. Since the specific factual circumstance was over and the governing statute was no longer in effect, a ruling on the interpretation of the repealed law regarding special public holidays would be an abstract exercise with no practical legal effect. The Court therefore declined to resolve the underlying legal question, as any opinion rendered would be advisory. Justice Barredo, in a separate concurrence, noted that while the appeal was moot, he believed the appellants’ original interpretation of the law was correct.