G.R. Nos. L-22308 and L-22343-4; March 31, 1966
THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY and THE CHIEF, GENERAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, PHILIPPINE ARMY, petitioners, vs. THE JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, CALOOCAN CITY and LEON ROQUE, respondents. HON. MACARIO PERALTA, in his capacity as Secretary of National Defense and the PC PROVINCIAL COMMANDER OF RIZAL, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, Judge of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, 3rd Branch, Pasay City; CANDIDO IGNACIO alias CANDING ALHEDA, and CLARO CORTEZ, doing business under the name and style of PARAÑAQUE COCKPIT STADIUM, PILAR O. SANTIAGO and FELICIANO SOBREMONTE, doing business under the name and style of PASAY COCKPIT, respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated cases involve municipal ordinances from Caloocan City, Parañaque, and Pasay City that authorized licensed cockpits to hold cockfights on ordinary days beyond those permitted by Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code (which allowed cockfighting only on legal holidays and for a period not exceeding three days during the local fiesta). In G.R. No. L-22308, Leon Roque, operator of the Grace Park Cockpit, secured a writ of preliminary injunction from Judge Gabriel V. Valero to restrain Constabulary officers from interfering with Wednesday cockfights authorized under a Caloocan ordinance. In G.R. Nos. L-22343-44, similar injunctions were issued by Judge Pedro Jl. Bautista in favor of cockpit operators in Parañaque and Pasay City based on their respective ordinances. The petitioners (Constabulary and Defense officials) challenged these injunctions, arguing the ordinances were invalid under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Quimsing vs. Lachica. Despite the Quimsing precedent being cited to the lower courts and the underlying civil cases eventually being dismissed by the plaintiffs, the injunctions remained in force for extended periods, preventing law enforcement.

ISSUE

Whether a municipal ordinance may validly authorize licensed cockpits to hold cockfights on days other than those mentioned in Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the municipal ordinances in question are null and void. Reiterating its doctrine in Quimsing vs. Lachica, the Court held that Republic Act No. 938, which grants local governments the power to regulate cockpits, does not confer a blanket authority to permit cockfighting at any time. Such a power would amount to an implied repeal or vital amendment of the restrictive provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, which is not favored. Grants of power to local governments are construed strictly, and doubts are resolved in favor of the national government. The authority to regulate the “establishment, maintenance and operation” of cockpits pertains to matters like location, construction, and safety, not to the scheduling of cockfights, which remains governed by the national law. The respondent judges gravely abused their discretion in issuing and failing to dissolve the preliminary injunctions despite the clear precedent in Quimsing. The petitions were dismissed, with costs against the private respondents (cockpit operators).