G.R. No. 34163 ; September 18, 1931
GREGORIO PEDRO, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Gregorio Pedro purchased a cockpit in Galas, Caloocan, Rizal, and applied for a permit to operate it. The municipal council enacted Ordinance No. 35 (series of 1928), reducing the required distance of a cockpit from a hospital from 1,500 meters (under prior Ordinance No. 34) to 500 meters, and granted Pedro a permit. Subsequently, the provincial governor suspended the municipal president and several councilors based on bribery allegations related to the ordinance’s approval. An ad interim municipal council then enacted Ordinance No. 36, suspending Ordinance No. 35 and effectively reinstating the 1,500-meter prohibition, which prevented Pedro from operating his cockpit. Pedro filed an action to annul Ordinance No. 36, claiming an acquired right under his permit and challenging the ordinance’s validity.

ISSUE

1. Whether Ordinance No. 36 is valid.
2. Whether Pedro acquired an irrevocable right under the permit granted pursuant to Ordinance No. 35.

RULING

1. Yes, Ordinance No. 36 is valid. The municipal council has the authority to amend or repeal ordinances. Ordinance No. 35, enacted under allegations of bribery, was irregular. Ordinance No. 36, which suspended Ordinance No. 35 to investigate public interest concerns, was a valid exercise of municipal power. The creation of a special sanitary committee to study the cockpit’s impact was informational, not a delegation of legislative power, and thus permissible.
2. No, Pedro did not acquire an irrevocable right. A cockpit license is a mere privilege, not a property right protected by due process. It can be revoked when public interest requires. Since Ordinance No. 35 was void due to irregularities in its enactment, no vested right could arise from the permit issued under it. The Court affirmed the dismissal of Pedro’s action.

AI Generated by Armztrong.