G.R. No. L-25601 February 2, 1979
LUISA V. VDA. DE GUISON, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY AND PROVINCIAL COMMANDER OF RIZAL, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners, operators of the La Loma Cockpit, were granted a permit by the Quezon City Mayor pursuant to Ordinance No. 64-5990, authorizing cockfights on Saturdays and certain weekdays. On March 11, 1965, the PC Provincial Commander of Rizal ordered them to cease operations on that weekday, threatening to raid and close the cockpit. Consequently, petitioners filed an injunction suit in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to restrain the PC from interfering with their legally permitted operations. The trial court denied the petition, prompting this appeal. The core dispute centered on the validity of the city ordinance and the corresponding mayor’s permit against the PC’s enforcement actions.
The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing the ordinance was null and void, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Quimsing vs. Lachica, and that the action was barred by a prior judgment (Spec. Civil Action No. 6446) which had declared a similar earlier ordinance ultra vires. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts confirming the petitioners had secured all requisite local permits and fees, and that the PC’s intervention was undertaken without any request from the Quezon City Mayor.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners have a cause of action to enjoin the Philippine Constabulary from interfering with their cockpit operations based on a permit issued under Quezon City Ordinance No. 64-5990.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, ruling against the petitioners. The legal logic proceeds from two key points. First, the Court found the central issues had been rendered moot and academic by supervening events. The declaration of martial law and the subsequent enactment of Presidential Decrees, particularly P.D. No. 449 (The Cockfighting Law of 1974), integrated police forces under the Chief of the PC and explicitly granted the PC authority to supervise cockfighting and cockpit operations. This new legal landscape displaced the previous local regulatory framework.
Second, and fundamentally, even absent the mootness, the petitioners’ claim lacked merit because the permit itself was issued under an invalid ordinance. The Court applied the doctrine established in Quimsing vs. Lachica and Chief of the Philippine Constabulary v. Sabungan Bagong Silang, Inc., which held that a municipal or city ordinance cannot authorize cockfights on days other than those specified by general law (then Acts Nos. 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code). Republic Act No. 938 , which granted local councils regulatory power over cockpits, did not extend to authorizing additional fighting days. Therefore, Ordinance No. 64-5990 was ultra vires and null and void. Since the mayor’s permit derived its authority from this invalid ordinance, it conferred no legal right upon the petitioners, and they consequently had no cause of action to restrain the PC. Costs were assessed against the appellants.