G.R. No. 91192 , December 2, 1991
Robinson V. Casiño, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, Gingoog Gallera, Inc., represented by its President and Manager, Lindy L. De Lara, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Robinson Casiño owned the Don Romulo Rodriguez Coliseum, a cockpit in Gingoog City. Initially operating under a license, his permit was cancelled after the city’s Sangguniang Panlungsod passed Resolution No. 49 (1984), which classified the cockpit’s location as a residential zone. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Resolution No. 378 (1985) to reclassify the area as a recreational zone. The vote was 4-4, with one abstention; the vice-mayor broke the tie in favor. The city mayor returned the resolution without action, stating his approval was unnecessary as it did not involve city funds. Based on this resolution, the next city mayor issued Casiño permits to operate in 1986 and 1987.
Private respondent Gingoog Gallera, Inc. protested before the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC), arguing Casiño’s cockpit lacked a PGC registration certificate and that Resolution No. 378 was invalid, thus the site remained residential. The PGC directed local officials to suspend the cockpit’s operations. Gallera then filed a special civil action before the Regional Trial Court, which declared the mayor’s permits null and void and enjoined Casiño from operating. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the city mayor’s permits issued to petitioner are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The permits are null and void. The legal logic rests on two grounds. First, Resolution No. 378, which purportedly reclassified the zone, was invalidly enacted. The applicable zoning ordinance (Resolution No. 49) required amendments to be passed by a three-fourths vote of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. The 4-4 vote, even with the vice-mayor’s tie-breaking vote, did not constitute the mandated three-fourths majority. Therefore, the reclassification was ineffective, and the site legally remained a residential zone where a cockpit could not operate.
Second, the mayor’s permits were issued without a mandatory prerequisite. Under the rules of the Philippine Gamefowl Commission, a cockpit must first secure an annual registration certificate from the PGC before a local mayor’s permit can be validly issued. The PGC’s power of review and supervision over cockpit operations includes ensuring this rule is followed. Petitioner had no such PGC registration certificate when the mayor’s permits were granted. Consequently, the local permits were issued in violation of law and were void from the beginning. The Court held that declaring them null, though they had expired, served as a necessary guide for future official action.