Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994

Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994

Title of the Case: Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994

Nature: Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

Keywords: Casino, Cagayan De Oro, Ordinance 3353 prohibiting issuance of business permit for operation of Casino; Ordinance 3375-93 Prohibiting the Operation of Casino and Providing Penalty for Violation Thereof

Summary: CA - declared ordinance invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their enforcement; SC - petition denied, CA decision AFFIRMED.

CRUZ, J.

Facts: PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc., renovated and equipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas season.

Civic organizations angrily denounced the project. The religious elements echoed the objection and so did the women's groups and the youth. Demonstrations were led by the mayor and the city legislators. The media trumpeted the protest, describing the casino as an affront to the welfare of the city.

The contention of the petitioners is that it is violative of the Sangguniang Panlungsodof Cagayan de Oro City Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos.

On the other hand, the respondents invoke P.D. 1869 which created PAGCOR to help centralize and regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents. Hence, the petition for review.

Issue: Whether or not the Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 are valid

Ratio: No. Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered to enact ordinances for the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code. It is expressly vested with the police power under what is known as the General Welfare Clause now embodied in Section 16 as follows:

Sec. 16. General Welfare. — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

There is a requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmakingbody. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than thoseof the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mereordinance the mandate of the statute.

Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered.