GR L 15719; (May, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15719; May 31, 1961
MARCELO SARMIENTO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PEDRO BELDEROL, ET AL., defendant-appellees.
FACTS
The Municipal Council of Tagbilaran, Bohol, enacted Ordinance No. 12, series of 1956, which prohibited the operation of a cockpit within 100 lineal meters from any public building, school, hospital, or church. In January 1958, Municipal Mayor Pedro Belderol issued a permit to Eugenio Inting to operate a cockpit on Remolador Street. Appellant Marcelo Sarmiento, a licensed cockpit operator, protested that Inting’s cockpit was only about 84.80 meters from the Rafael Palma College buildings, violating the 100-meter prohibition. The Municipal Council and Mayor, instead of acting on the protest, advised Sarmiento to seek judicial recourse.
Subsequently, on February 17, 1958, the Municipal Council enacted Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, which abolished the 100-meter distance requirement for cockpits established by the 1956 ordinance and made this abolition retroactive to May 17, 1955. Sarmiento and others filed suit, challenging the validity of the new ordinance and the legality of Inting’s cockpit permit. The Court of First Instance of Bohol upheld both the ordinance and the permit, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, which abolished the distance requirement for cockpits, is valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, declaring Ordinance No. 2, series of 1958, null and void. The legal logic rests on the principle that municipal ordinances must be enacted for the general welfare and not for the benefit of specific individuals. The Court found that the ordinance was enacted under suspicious circumstances. Inting’s permit was issued despite a prior denial of a similar permit to another applicant, Valeriano Manungolh, for the same location due to the distance prohibition. The ordinance was passed just three days after the Mayor was required by the Office of the President to explain the issuance of Inting’s permit. Furthermore, the retroactive application to 1955 appeared designed solely to legalize Inting’s otherwise illegal operation.
The Court ruled that such an ordinance, intended to favor a particular person or group, constitutes partial and class legislation, which is prohibited. An ordinance must operate equally upon all persons under similar circumstances. By arbitrarily removing a public welfare restriction (the distance requirement mandated by Republic Act No. 1224 ) to benefit a specific entity, the municipality exceeded its delegated police power. Consequently, Ordinance No. 2 is invalid, and Inting’s cockpit operation violates the valid provisions of Ordinance No. 12, series of 1956. The permit issued to Inting was declared null and void.