CASE 1 (Espino & Pascasio)

SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF LAGUNA, vs. HON. FRANCISCO DIZON

Facts:

Tony Calvento ,was appointed agent by the Philippine Charity sweepstakes (PCSO) To
install terminal OM For the operation of Lotto. He asked the Office of the Mayor of San
Pedro, Laguna a mayor’s permit to open the Lotto outlet and the Mayor denied the request
of Calvento. The ground for said the denial was an ordinance pass by the Sangguniang
panlalawigan Laguna entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. 508 1995 which was issued on Sept. 18
1995.

As a result of this resolution of denial respondent Calveno filed a complain for declaratory
relief with prayer of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Respondent
Calveto asked the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro Laguna ,Branch 93 ,for the
followingreliefss (1) Preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order , ordering the
defendants to refrain from implementing or enforcing Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T 1995 ; (2)
an order requiring Hon. Municipal Mayor Calixto R. Cataquiz to issue a Business permit
for the operation of the Lotto outlet;(3) and an order declaring Kapasiyahan Blg. 508 T
1995 as invalid

On February 10 1997 ,the respondent Judge Francisco Dizon Pano , promulgated his
decision enjoying the petitioners from implementing or enforcing resolution or
Kapasiyahan Blg. 508 T. 1995 . Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was
subsequently denied I an order dated April 21 1997.

Issue: Whether or not: Kapisayan Blg. 508, T 1995 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Laguna and the denial of a mayor’s permit based on the ordinance is valid

Held: No. The mayor of San Pablo cannot use Kapisayan Blg. 508, T 1995 in refusing to
issue a permit to the respondents.

The local government such as the province of Laguna are only agents of the national
government. The legislative power they exercise in legislating and enacting
ordinances/resolutions is only a delegated power coming from Congress. Thus, a mere
ordinance prohibiting a form of gambling should not contravene an existing statute
instituted by the Congress that authorizes it.
In this case, the ordinance contradicted with an existing law. Therefore, the Kapasiyahan
Bilang 508, Taon 1995, of the Provincial Board of Laguna should no longer be
implemented.

CASE 2 (Clavel, Lopez & Serrano)

Facts: The Acebedo Optical Company Inc. applied with the Office of City Mayor Iligan for
a business permit. After consideration of petitioner's application and the opposition
interposed thereto by local optometrists, respondent City Mayor issued Business Permit
No. 5342 subject to the following conditions: Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot
put up an optical clinic but only a commercial store, they cannot examine and/or prescribe
reading and similar optical glasses for patients, because these are functions of optical
clinics, they cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a prescription having first
been made by an independent optometrist (not its employee) or independent optical
clinic, they can only sell directly to the public, without need of a prescription, Ray-Ban and
similar eyeglasses, cannot advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses, but can advertise
Ray-Ban and similar glasses and frames, and they’re allowed to grind lenses but only
upon the prescription of an independent optometrist.The Samahan ng Optometrist Sa
Pilipinas (SOPI), Iligan Chapter, on December 5, 1988 issue a complaint before the office
of City Mayor, that Acebedo had violated the conditions set forth in its business permit
and requesting the cancellation and or revocation of such permit. The city mayor sent the
petition a notice of resolution and cancellation of business permit on July 9,1989 giving
them 3 months to wind up its affairs.

Issue: Whether or not, the City Mayor acted beyond his authority in imposing of special
conditions to grant the business permits.

Held: Yes. The city mayor of Iligan acted beyond the authority vested in him in imposing
of special conditions in granting the business permit.

It was stated in section 55 of local government code that veto power of local chief
executive will be on the ground of ultra vires or prejudicial to the public welfare.

In this case, the fact that petitioner acquiesced in the special conditions imposed by the
City Mayor in subject business permit it does not preclude it from challenging the said
imposition, which is ultra vires or beyond the authority of respondent City Mayor.
Therefore, the petition is being granted by the court of appeals.

CASE 3 (Licayan & Pasaporte)

Facts:

Municipal Board of Lemery passed a resolution No. 18, series of 1931 in order to
abolish the position of janitor for the office of justice of peace and consolidated it
into one man the duty to serve three different offices: the municipal president,
the municipal secretary, and the justice of the peace court. The provincial Board
of Batangas disapproved the resolution by releasing resolution No. 289 of the the
ground that the municipal violated the section 212 of the Administrative Code, to provide
the justice of peace its adequate janitor service and porter service.

The municipal council of filed a petition against the provincial board for the reasons, that
the resolution No. 289 of the respondent provincial board be declared null and void and
contrary to law, so as to leave resolution No. 18, series of 1931, of the plaintiff municipal
council in full force and effect, and that the preliminary injunction issued in the course of
this proceeding be made permanent. The provincial board denied each of the allegations.

Issue:

The issue in this case is whether the provincial board of Lemery exceeded in exercising
their quasi-judicial powers/

Held:

Yes. The provincial boad of Lemery exceeded its power in disapproving resolution No.
18, series of 1931 of the municipal council of Lemery.

Section 56 of the Local Government Code of 1991 states that “If the sangguniang
panlalawigan finds that such an ordinance or resolution is beyond the power conferred
upon the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned, it shall declare
such ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part.”

In such case, the provincial board of Batangas exceeded its quasi-judicial function by
basing their disapproval on Section 212 of the Administrative Code. Municipalities are
grandted with the responsibility to provide the justice of peace with the needed janitorial
service and not an exclusive janitorial service. Therefore, the petition declaring resolution
No. 289 of the provincial board of Batangas, which disapproved the municipal council of
Lemery’s resolution No. 18, series of 1931, as null and void and the latter as valid and
lawful.