CA dismisses appeal on LCSC operation

By Dominic B. dela Cruz(Staff Reporter)

Laoag City—The Court of Appeals (CA) first Division has dismissed the petition of Laoag councilor Roger John Fariñas on the disapproved City Ordinance No. 2016-111 granting franchise to Alejendro “Bong” Taylan to operate the Laoag City Sports Complex (LCSC) for a period of five (5) years.

CA Associate Justice Nina G Antonio-Valenzuela penned the decision dismissing the petition.

The Sanggunian Panlalawigan earlier disapproved the city ordinance on February 2017; based on a committee report which said subject ordinance was void for being “ultra vires” as it failed to indicate the citizenship of the franchisee (Taylan).

The said ordinance also did not indicate the scheduled days of cockfighting, the location of the cockpits and the effectivity of the franchise.

An earlier petition prayed that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 12 will issue a writ of certiorari against the higher sanggunian for its disapproval. However, the provincial board filed an answer and countered the appellant, Mr. Fariñas, has no legal standing to file the petition.

On October 26, 2017, RTC Branch 12 issued a resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that Mr. Farinas had no locus standi to file the petition.

On November 17, 2017, RTC Branch 12 inhibited from the hearing of the higher sanggunian’s motion for reconsideration and ordered for a re-raffle of the case.

The case was then re-raffled to RTC Branch 16 and said branch conducted hearings on the parties’ motions for partial reconsideration.

On August 30, 2018, RTC Brach 16 handed down the first assailed order: “As to the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by the petitioner, considering that the grounds raised: petitioner has locus standi and certiorari is a proper remedy, have been extensively passed upon by the Court in its Resolution dated October 26, 2017, the same is hereby DENIED for lack of merit”.

On January 28, 2019, RTC Branch 16 issued the second assailed order denying the appellant Fariñas’ motion for reconsideration.

Under Section 458(a) (3)(v) of the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Panlungsod has the power to enact ordinances to authorize and license the establishment, operation and maintenance of cockpits subject to any contrary law.

However, such power is qualified by the restrictions imposed by the cockfighting law which Section 5 states “(a) Ownership, Operation and Management of Cockpits. Only Filipino Citizens not otherwise inhibited by exiting laws shall be allowed to own, manage and operate cockpits. Cooperative capitalization is encouraged. (b) Establishment of Cockpits. Only one cockpit shall be allowed in each city or municipality, except that in cities or municipalities with a population of over 100,000, two cockpits may be established, maintained and operated. (c) Cockpits Site and Construction. Cockpits shall be constructed and operated within appropriate areas and (d) Holding of Cockpits. Except as provided in this Decree, cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed cockpits during Sundays and Legal Holidays and during local fiestas for not more than three days”.

The subject ordinance was not compliant with Section 5 under the Cockfighting Law. Thus, the enactment of said ordinance was an ultra vires act of the Sangguniang Panlungsod because it failed to indicate the citizenship of Mr. Taylan and cockpit operators should be limited to Filipino citizens.

The decision also stated that the subject ordinance as “ultra vires” because it did not state the days when the cockfighting will be held, the location of the cockpits and did not show that the cockpit will not be constructed within or new existing residential or commercial areas, hospitals, school buildings, churches or other public buildings. 

Considering that city ordinance No. 2016-111 failed to contain the limitations imposed by the Cockfighting Law, said ordinance was an ultra vires act of the Sangguniang Panlungsod as a result of its dismissal.

During the chairman’s time in their regular session, Laoag vice mayor and council presiding officer Atty. Vicentito Lazo informed the body of the Court of Appeals decision.

The Ilocos Times learned that Mr. Lazo and now-Laoag councilor Atty. Juan Conrado Respicio were both members the higher sanggunian at that time and Mr. Lazo actively took part in the litigation.

According to Mr. Lazo, he felt “doubly happy” because the ordinance was ultra vires and their position was sustained and supported by the CA’s first division.

The Ilocos Times also tried to get the reaction of Mr. Fariñas but he said he still need to read the decision first before offering any comment.