G.R. Nos. L-72969-70 December 17, 1986
Philippine Gamefowl Commission and Hee Acusar, petitioners, vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Mayor Celestino E. Martinez, Jr., The Sangguniang Bayan of Bogo (Cebu), and Santiago Sevilla, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a jurisdictional conflict over the authority to license cockpits in Bogo, Cebu. Hee Acusar, the former operator, failed to relocate his cockpit as mandated by Presidential Decree No. 449 (The Cockfighting Law of 1974), leading to its being considered phased out. The Court of First Instance of Cebu ruled he had waived his right to a renewal. Subsequently, on July 24, 1980, respondent Mayor Celestino E. Martinez, Jr., with the Sangguniang Bayan’s authority, issued a license to Santiago Sevilla to operate the lone cockpit permitted in the municipality.
Acusar challenged Sevilla’s license but failed in proceedings before the Philippine Constabulary and the Court of First Instance. He then petitioned the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC), which, in a resolution dated December 6, 1984, ordered the municipal officials to issue a permit to Acusar and to cancel Sevilla’s permit, also revoking Sevilla’s PGC registration certificate. The Intermediate Appellate Court declared this PGC resolution null and void, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Philippine Gamefowl Commission possesses the power to issue, cancel, or revoke licenses for the operation of ordinary municipal cockpits, or if such authority is primarily vested in local government officials.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. The legal logic rests on a clear statutory delineation of powers. Under Presidential Decree No. 1802, as amended, the PGC’s licensing power is explicitly limited to “international derbies.” For regular cockfighting, Section 4, as amended by P.D. 1802-A, provides that city and municipal mayors, with the concurrence of their respective sanggunians, “shall have the authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting pursuant to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission and subject to its review and supervision.”
This framework is reinforced by the Local Government Code, which grants the municipal mayor the power to issue and revoke licenses and the Sangguniang Bayan the authority to regulate cockpits subject to PGC guidelines. The Court distinguished the PGC’s power of “review and supervision” from “control.” Supervision is merely the power to ensure that subordinates perform their duties according to law; it does not include the authority to annul or substitute their acts, which is the power of control. The PGC’s order directing the mayor to issue a permit to Acusar and cancel Sevilla’s permit constituted an act of control, which it did not possess. Therefore, the PGC resolution was issued without jurisdiction and was correctly nullified by the appellate court.