G.R. No. L-14683. May 30, 1961
JOAQUIN QUIMSING, petitioner-appellant, vs. CAPT. ALFREDO LACHICA, et al., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Joaquin Quimsing, owner of a licensed cockpit in Iloilo City, alleged that a city ordinance authorized cockfighting on Thursdays. On February 13, 1958, respondents Capt. Alfredo Lachica and Lt. Narciso Aliño Jr., leading police and PC forces, raided the cockpit on a Thursday, arrested Quimsing and others, and charged them with illegal cockfighting under Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondents claimed the raid was conducted in good faith, believing the ordinance contravened general law.
Quimsing filed a suit in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo with two causes of action. First, he sought compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages from the respondents in their private capacities, alleging the raid was illegal and done in bad faith due to his political differences with the city mayor. Second, he sought injunctive relief to restrain the officials from interfering with Thursday cockfights. The trial court dismissed both the petition and the respondents’ counterclaim for damages, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether respondents acted in bad faith, making them personally liable for damages; and (2) whether the city ordinance permitting Thursday cockfights was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. On the claim for damages, the Court found no sufficient evidence of bad faith. Major Lucero had no prior knowledge of the raid. Capt. Lachica and Lt. Aliño Jr. acted under an earnest, though contested, belief that cockfighting on Thursdays remained illegal under the Revised Penal Code and the Revised Administrative Code, notwithstanding the local ordinance. Given this good-faith discharge of official duty and the lack of satisfactory proof of compensatory damages, the award of damages was unjustified.
On the validity of the ordinance, the Court ruled it was invalid. The power of municipal corporations to regulate cockpits under Republic Act No. 938 , as amended, is distinct from the power to regulate cockfighting itself. The authority to “regulate… cockpits” pertains to aspects like location, construction, and admission rules, not to specifying legal cockfighting days. The determination of permissible days for cockfighting remains governed by general law (Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code). Local ordinances cannot contravene these general statutes. Therefore, the raid and arrest, based on the enforcement of the general law, were lawful. The injunction was properly denied.