7/16/2019 3. Lim vs. Pacquing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-lim-vs-pacquing 1/2

Lim vs. Pacquing240 SCRA 649

FACTS

 Associate Development Corporation (ADC) filed a motion for execution of a final judgment rendered earlier whichordered the Mayor of the City of Manila, Hon Alfredo ! "im, to immediately issue to ADC the permit#license to

operate jai$alai in Manila under Manila %rdinance &o '* +espondent udge -ac.uing issued in a civil case thefollowing orders which were assailed /y Mayor "im0

1 %rder dated 23 March 1445 directing Mayor "im to issue the permit#license to operate the jai$alai in favor of ADC6

2 %rder dated 11 April 1445 directing Mayor "im to explain why he should not /e cited for contempt for non$compliance with the order dated 23 March 14456

7 %rder dated 2 April 1445 reiterating the previous order directing Mayor "im to immediately issue thepermit#license to ADC

-etitioner 8eofisto 9uingona, r, as executive secretary, issued a directive to then chairman of the 9ames and Amusement :oard (9A:) ;rancisco + !umulong, r to hold the grant of authority to ADC to operate the jai$alai inthe City of Manila until the following legal .uestions are properly resolved0

a <%& -D ''1 (which revo=ed all existing jai$alai franchises issued /y local governments as of August 2,

14'*) is constitutional6/ <hether the City of Manila had the power to issue a jai$alai franchise in view of >xecutive %rder &o 742

(which transferred from local governments to the 9A: the power to regulate jai$alai)

 ADC then filed another petition see=ing to prevent 9A: from withdrawing the provisional authority that had earlier/een granted to ADC 8he +8C of Manila, through udge ?etino +eyes, issued a 8+% enjoining the 9A: fromwithdrawing ADC@s provisional authority !aid 8+% was then converted into a writ of preliminary injunction upon

 ADC@s posting of a /ond

!u/se.uently, the +epu/lic of the -hilippines, through the 9A:, intervened in the case and the respondents weremade to comment on the motions filed /y 9A: Meanwhile, udge +eyes issued another order, this time, granting

 ADC a writ of preliminary mandatory  injunction against 9uingona and 9A: to compel them to issue in favor of ADCthe authority to operate the jai$alai 9uingona and the new 9A: chairman then filed another petition assailing theorder of udge +eyes

ISSUES

1 <%& intervention /y the +epu/lic of the -hilippines at this stage of the proceedings is proper6

2 <%& -D ''1 is constitutional6

7 <%& the Associated Development Corporation has a valid and su/sisting franchise to maintain and operatethe jai$alai6

5 <%& there was grave a/use of discretion committed /y respondent udge +eyes in issuing the 8+% (later,writ of preliminary injunction) and the writ of preliminary mandatory  injunction

RULING

1 >! 8he !tate cannot /e put in estoppel /y the mista=es or errors, if any, of its officials or agents 8he+epu/lic is intervening in the exercise, not of its /usiness or propriety functions, /ut in the exercise of itsgovernmental functions to protect pu/lic morals and promote the general welfare

2 >! -D &o ''1 is valid and constitutional Bt is a valid exercise of the inherent police power of the state

7 &% 8he Congress did not delegate to the City of Manila the power to franchise wagers or /etting,including the jai$alai, /ut retained for itself such power to franchise <hat Congress delegated to the City of Manila in +A &o 54, with respect to wagers or /etting, was the power to license, permit or regulatewhich therefore means that a license or permit issued /y the City of Manila to operate a wager or /etting

7/16/2019 3. Lim vs. Pacquing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-lim-vs-pacquing 2/2

activity, such as the jai$alai where /ets are accepted, would not amount to something meaningful E&">!!the holder of the permit or license was also ;+A&CHB!>D /y the national government to so operate !ince

 ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate the jai$alai, it may not so operate even if it has license orpermit from the City Mayor to operate the jai$alai in the City of Manila

4. >! +espondent judge should have ta=en judicial notice of +epu/lic Act &o 4*5 and -D ''1, under

!ection 1 rule 124 of the +ules of court 8hese laws negate the existence of any legal right on the part of

 ADC to the reliefs it sought so as to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction !ince -D &o ''1and +epu/lic Act &o 4*5 are presumed valid and constitutional until ruled otherwise /y the !upreme Courtafter due hearing, ADC was not entitled to the writs issued and conse.uently, there was grave a/use ofdiscretion in issuing them