Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 310 views

    Lim vs. Pacquing (G.R. No. 115044. January 27, 1995)

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Sumagang Reyes
    This case involved a dispute over whether a local ordinance granting a franchise to operate a jai-alai facility was revoked by Presidential Decree 771. The Supreme Court held that PD 771, which revoked all local government powers over gambling facilities, was valid and constitutional. It revoked all existing local franchises, including the one that allowed ADC to operate jai-alai. The presumption is that PD 771 remains valid unless repealed by a subsequent law, which did not occur. Additionally, the government cannot be estopped from enforcing its laws due to mistakes of officials in the past.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lim vs. Pacquing (G.R. No. 115044. January 27, 1995)

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Sumagang Reyes
    310 views1 page
    This case involved a dispute over whether a local ordinance granting a franchise to operate a jai-alai facility was revoked by Presidential Decree 771. The Supreme Court held that PD 771, which revoked all local government powers over gambling facilities, was valid and constitutional. It revoked all existing local franchises, including the one that allowed ADC to operate jai-alai. The presumption is that PD 771 remains valid unless repealed by a subsequent law, which did not occur. Additionally, the government cannot be estopped from enforcing its laws due to mistakes of officials in the past.

    Original Title

    Lim-vs-pacquing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over whether a local ordinance granting a franchise to operate a jai-alai facility was revoked by Presidential Decree 771. The Supreme Court held that PD 771, which revoked all local government powers over gambling facilities, was valid and constitutional. It revoked all existing local franchises, including the one that allowed ADC to operate jai-alai. The presumption is that PD 771 remains valid unless repealed by a subsequent law, which did not occur. Additionally, the government cannot be estopped from enforcing its laws due to mistakes of officials in the past.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    310 views1 page

    Lim vs. Pacquing (G.R. No. 115044. January 27, 1995)

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Sumagang Reyes
    This case involved a dispute over whether a local ordinance granting a franchise to operate a jai-alai facility was revoked by Presidential Decree 771. The Supreme Court held that PD 771, which revoked all local government powers over gambling facilities, was valid and constitutional. It revoked all existing local franchises, including the one that allowed ADC to operate jai-alai. The presumption is that PD 771 remains valid unless repealed by a subsequent law, which did not occur. Additionally, the government cannot be estopped from enforcing its laws due to mistakes of officials in the past.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Lim vs. Pacquing [G.R. No. 115044.

    January 27, 1995]


    Ponente: PADILLA, J.

    FACTS:

    The Charter of the City of Manila was enacted by Congress on 18 June 1949 (R.A. No. 409).

    On 1 January 1951, Executive Order No. 392 was issued transferring the authority to regulate jai-alais
    from local government to the Games and Amusements Board (GAB).
    On 07 September 1971, however, the Municipal Board of Manila nonetheless passed Ordinance No.
    7065 entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing the Mayor To Allow And Permit The Associated Development
    Corporation To Establish, Maintain And Operate A Jai-Alai In The City Of Manila, Under Certain Terms
    And Conditions And For Other Purposes.”
    On 20 August 1975, Presidential Decree No. 771 was issued by then President Marcos. The decree,
    entitled “Revoking All Powers and Authority of Local Government(s) To Grant Franchise, License or
    Permit And Regulate Wagers Or Betting By The Public On Horse And Dog Races, Jai-Alai Or Basque
    Pelota, And Other Forms Of Gambling”, in Section 3 thereof, expressly revoked all existing franchises
    and permits issued by local governments.
    In May 1988, Associated Development Corporation (ADC) tried to operate a Jai-Alai. The government
    through Games and Amusement Board intervened and invoked Presidential Decree No. 771 which
    expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of gambling facilities (including
    Jai-Alai) by local governments. ADC assails the constitutionality of P.D. No. 771.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not P.D. No. 771 is violative of the equal protection and non-impairment clauses of the
    Constitution.

    HELD:

    NO. P.D. No. 771 is valid and constitutional.

    RATIO:

    Presumption against unconstitutionality. There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No.
    771 has been repealed, altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the
    executive still exercised legislative powers).

    Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADC’s franchise by reason of
    the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the Court’s First
    Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as
    unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the
    Constitution.

    And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADC’s possession of
    a valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or
    errors, if any, of its officials or agents. (Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90)

    You might also like