G.R. No. L-22609 February 28, 1966
THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, petitioner, vs. SABUNGAN BAGONG SILANG, INC., ARTEMIO PAGUIA and THE HON. GUILLERMO TORRES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII (Pasig), respondents.

FACTS

The Municipality of Mandaluyong, Rizal, enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1963. Section II of the ordinance prohibited cockfighting except in a duly licensed cockpit, but allowed it for charitable purposes pursuant to Republic Act No. 979 , at the discretion of the Municipal Mayor, with permits not exceeding one day per week per cockpit. Relying on this ordinance, the Municipal Mayor issued permits to respondent Sabungan Bagong Silang, Inc. to hold cockfights every Wednesday. However, the petitioner, the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary, threatened to prevent these cockfights and to arrest the corporation’s representatives. Consequently, the corporation filed Civil Case No. 7544 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, seeking to prohibit the petitioner from interfering and requesting a preliminary injunction. On January 30, 1963, respondent Judge Guillermo Torres issued an ex-parte restraining order against the petitioner and set the hearing for the preliminary injunction. The petitioner filed an answer, objecting to the injunction and moving to dismiss the case. Despite multiple postponements of the hearing requested by the corporation and motions filed by the petitioner to lift the restraining order and to have the legal issues resolved, respondent Judge failed to act on these motions for over three years. The petitioner then filed this original action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion due to the prolonged inaction on the restraining order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, by failing to resolve the motion to lift the ex-parte restraining order for over three years, and whether the restraining order was issued in violation of established law.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Judge’s inaction for over three years in resolving the motion to lift the restraining order, despite repeated urgings, constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, warranting the issuance of writs of certiorari and prohibition. The Court further found that the restraining order was issued contrary to law, as a similar ordinance authorizing cockfighting on weekdays had already been declared null and void by the Supreme Court in Quimsing vs. Lachica (G.R. No. L-14683, May 30, 1961) for violating Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code, despite the regulatory authority granted by Republic Act No. 938 (reproduced in Republic Act No. 979 ). Therefore, the Court annulled the restraining order of January 30, 1963, and made permanent the preliminary mandatory injunction it had previously issued. Costs were imposed on the private respondents.