GR L 11217; (February, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. and Date: G.R. No. L-11217; February 28, 1918
Case Title: Constancio Joaquin, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Godofredo B. Herrera, as municipal president of Caloocan, Rizal, Lope K. Santos, as provincial governor, and The Provincial Board of Rizal and Jose Javier, intervener, defendants. Silvino Lim and Jacinto Limjap, applicants for intervention, appellants.
FACTS:
Constancio Joaquin sought a municipal license to operate two cockpits in La Loma and Maypajo, Caloocan, Rizal. On February 5, 1913, Municipal President Godofredo B. Herrera issued him a license, but the municipal council initially revoked it, then reinstated it on February 23, 1913. Herrera vetoed the reinstatement resolution on February 28, 1913. Joaquin’s subsequent application on March 1, 1913, was denied, prompting him to file a complaint for mandamus and injunctive relief. The Court of First Instance issued a preliminary mandatory injunction, compelling Herrera to issue the license. Meanwhile, during Herrera’s temporary absence in April 1913, Vice-President Leopoldo Ponciano issued Joaquin another license, which Herrera revoked upon his return. Concurrently, Jose Javier applied for a monopoly of cockpit privileges around Manila, including the same sites. Javier’s application was endorsed to the municipal council but was not formally granted. Javier later assigned his rights to Silvino Lim and Jacinto Limjap, who obtained a provisional license on July 2, 1913, dependent on the litigation’s outcome. The trial court ultimately dismissed all claims, canceling the licenses issued to Joaquin and to Lim and Limjap, but continued the injunction until June 30, 1914, to allow municipal action. Joaquin and Lim and Limjap appealed.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Constancio Joaquin was entitled to the cockpit license and the damages for the period his operation was enjoined.
RULING:
1. Regarding Joaquin: The Supreme Court held that Joaquin’s license issued by Vice-President Ponciano on April 18, 1913, was valid. Herrera’s revocation thereof was improper. However, since the license period had expired, Joaquin was no longer entitled to operational relief but was entitled to recover damages for the period from May 21 to July 29, 1913, when his cockpits were wrongfully closed under an injunction obtained by Javier. The case was remanded to determine the extent of damages recoverable from Javier and his sureties.
The judgment of the lower court was reversed in part, affirming Joaquin’s right to damages and invalidating the order for municipal action by June 30, 1914, and affirmed in all other respects. No costs were awarded.
This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.