public corp cases- 3

8/13/2019 Public Corp Cases- 3

1/125

[G.R. No. 111097. July 20, 1994.]

MAYOR PABLO P. MAGTAJAS & THE CITY OF CAGAYAN DEORO,petitioners, vs. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION,INC. & PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMINGCORPORATION,respondents.

SYLLABUS

DAVIDE, JR., J., separate opinion:

1.REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF ACTION INCASE AT BAR ONE FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF. It must at once be noted thatprivate respondent Pryce Properties Corporation (PRYCE) directly filed with the

Court of Appeals its so-called petition forprohibition, thereby invoking the saidcourt's original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition under Section 9(1) of B.P.Blg. 129. As I see it, however, the principal cause of action therein is one fordeclaratory relief: to declare null and unconstitutional for, inter alia, havingbeen enacted without or in excess of jurisdiction, for impairing the obligation ofcontracts, and for being inconsistent with public policy the challengedordinances enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsodof the City of Cagayan deOro. The intervention therein of public respondent Philippine Amusement andGaming Corporation (PAGCOR) further underscores the "declaratory relief"

nature of the action. PAGCOR assails the ordinances for being contrary to thenon-impairment and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, violative of theLocal Government Code, and against the State's national policy declared in P.D.No. 1869. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over thenature of the action.

2.ID.; ID.; PROHIBITION; ESTABLISHED POLICY RELATIVE TO HIERARCHY OFCOURTS NOT OBSERVED IN FILING OF PETITION IN CASE AT BAR.

Assuming arguendothat the case is one forprohibition, then, under this Court'sestablished policy relative to the hierarchy of courts, the petition should have

been filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. I find no specialor compelling reason why it was not filed with the said court. I do not wish toentertain the thought that PRYCE doubted a favorable verdict therefrom, inwhich case the filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals may have beenimpelled by tactical considerations. A dismissal of the petition by the Court of

Appeals would have been in order pursuant to our decisions in People vs.


2/125

Cuaresma(172 SCRA 415, [1989]) and Defensor-Santiago vs. Vasquez(217SCRA 633 1993]).

3.STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1869 NOTREPEALED PRO TANTOBY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. The challenged

ordinances were enacted pursuant to the Sangguniang Panglungsod's expresspowers conferred by Section 458paragraph (a)subparagraphs (1)-(V), (3)-(ii),and (4)-(i), (iv), and (vii), Local Government Code, and pursuant to its impliedpower under Section 16 thereof. . . . . The issue that necessarily arises iswhether in granting local governments (such as the City of Cagayan de Oro) theabove powers and functions, the Local Government Code has,pro tanto,repealed P.D. No. 1869 insofar as PAGCOR'S general authority to establish andmaintain gambling casinos anywhere in the Philippines is concerned. I join themajority in holding that the ordinances cannot repeal P.D. No. 1869.

4.CONTRAVENTION OF LAW NOT NECESSARILY A CONTRAVENTION OF THECONSTITUTION; ORDINANCES IN CASE AT BAR RECONCILED WITHPRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1869. The nullification by the Court of Appeals ofthe challenged ordinances as unconstitutionalprimarily because it is incontravention to P.D. No. 1869 is unwarranted. A contravention of a law is notnecessarily a contravention of the constitution. In any case, the ordinances canstill stand even if they be conceded as offending P.D. No. 1869. They can bereconciled, which is not impossible to do. So reconciled, the ordinances shouldbe construed as not applying to PAGCOR.

D E C I S I O N

CRUZ,J p:

There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the opening of a casinoin Cagayan de Oro City. Civic organizations angrily denounced the project, Thereligious elements echoed and objection and so did the women's groups and the

youth. Demonstrations were led by the mayor and the city legislators. The mediatrumpeted the protest, describing the casino as an affront to the welfare of thecity.

The trouble arose when in 1992, flush with its tremendous success in severalcities, PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To thisend, it leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation


3/125

Inc., one of the herein private respondents, renovated and equipped the same,and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas season.

The reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swiftand hostile. On December 7, 1992, it enacted Ordinance No. 3353 reading as

follows:

ORDINANCE NO. 3353

AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS PERMITAND CANCELLING EXISTING BUSINESS PERMIT TO ANYESTABLISHMENT FOR THE USING AND ALLOWING TO BE USED ITSPREMISES OR PORTION THEREOF FOR THE OPERATION OF CASINO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of

Cagayan de Oro, in session assembled that:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to the policy of the city banning theoperation of casino within its territorial jurisdiction, no business permitshall be issued to any person, partnership or corporation for theoperation of casino within the city limits.

SECTION 2. That it shall be violation of existing business permit by anypersons, partnership or corporation to use its business establishment orportion thereof, or allow the use thereof by others for casino operationand other gambling activities.

SECTION 3. PENALTIES. Any violation of such existing businesspermit as defined in the preceding section shall suffer the followingpenalties, to wit:

a)Suspension of the business permit for sixty (60) days for thefirst offense and a fine of P1,000.00/day

b)Suspension of the business permit for Six (6) months for thesecond offense, and a fine of P3,000.00/day

c)Permanent revocation of the business permit and imprisonmentof One (1) year, for the third and subsequent offenses.

SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days frompublication thereof.


4/125

Nor was this all. On January 4, 1993, it adopted a sterner Ordinance No. 3375-93reading as follows:

ORDINANCE NO. 3375-93

AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF CASINO ANDPROVIDING PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREFOR.

WHEREAS, the City Council established a policy as early as 1990 againstCASINO under its Resolution No. 2295;

WHEREAS, on October 14, 1992, the City Council passed anotherResolution No. 2673, reiterating its policy against the establishment ofCASINO;

WHEREAS, subsequently, thereafter, it likewise passed Ordinance No.3353, prohibiting the issuance of Business Permit and to cancel existingBusiness Permit to any establishment for the using and allowing to beused its premises or portion thereof for the operation of CASINO.

WHEREAS, under Art. 3, section 458, No. (4), sub paragraph VI of theLocal Government Code of 1991 (Rep. Act 7160) and under Art. 99, No.(4), Paragraph VI of the implementing rules of the Local GovernmentCode, the City Council as the Legislative Body shall enact measure tosuppress any activity inimical to public morals and general welfare of thepeople and/or regulate or prohibit such activity pertaining to amusement

or entertainment in order to protect social and moral welfare of thecommunity;

NOW THEREFORE,

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council in session duly assembled that:

SECTION 1. The operation of gambling CASINO in the City of Cagayande Oro is hereby prohibited.

SECTION 2. Any violation of this Ordinance shall be subject to the

following penalties:

a)Administrative fine of P5,000.00 shall be imposed against theproprietor, partnership or corporation undertaking the operation,conduct, maintenance of gambling CASINO in the City andclosure thereof;


5/125

b)Imprisonment of not less than six (6) months nor more thanone (1) year or a fine in the amount of P5,000.00 or both at thediscretion of the court against the manager, supervisor, and/orany person responsible in the establishment, conduct andmaintenance of gambling CASINO.

SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after itspublication in a local newspaper of general circulation.

Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court of Appeals, where it was joinedby PAGCOR as intervenor and supplemental petitioner. Their challengesucceeded. On March 31, 1993, the Court of Appeals declared the ordinancesinvalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit theirenforcement.1Reconsideration of this decision was denied on July 13, 1993.2

Cagayan de Oro City and its mayor are now before us in this petition for reviewunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.3They aver that the respondent Court of

Appeals erred in holding that:

1.Under existing laws, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City ofCagayan de Oro does not have the power and authority to prohibit theestablishment and operation of a PAGCOR gambling casino within theCity's territorial limits.

2.The phrase "gambling and other prohibited games of chance" found inSec. 458, par. (a), sub-par. (1) - (v) of R.A. 7160 could only mean"illegal gambling."

3.The questioned Ordinances in effect annul P.D. 1869 and are thereforeinvalid on that point.

4.The questioned Ordinances are discriminatory to casino and partial tocockfighting and are therefore invalid on that point.

5.The questioned Ordinances are not reasonable, not consonant withthe general powers and purposes of the instrumentality concerned and

inconsistent with the laws or policy of the State.

6.It had no option but to follow the ruling in the case of Basco, et al. v.PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991, 195 SCRA 53 in disposing ofthe issues presented in this present case.

PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by P.D. 1869 to help centralize andregulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnotes


6/125

territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. In Basco v. Philippine Amusements andGaming Corporation,4this Court sustained the constitutionality of the decree andeven cited the benefits of the entity to the national economy as the third highestrevenue-earner in the government, next only to the BIR and the Bureau ofCustoms. cdasia

Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered toenact ordinances for the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code. It isexpressly vested with the police power under what is known as the GeneralWelfare Clause now embodied in Section 16 as follows:

SEC. 16.General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercisethe powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, aswell as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient andeffective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion ofthe general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, localgovernment units shall ensure and support, among other things, thepreservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage andsupport the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific andtechnological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economicprosperity and social justice, promote full employment among theirresidents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort andconvenience of their inhabitants.

In addition, Section 458 of the said Code specifically declares that:

SEC. 458.Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (1) TheSangguniang Panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enactordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the generalwelfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of thisCode and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the city asprovided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:

(1)Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an

efficient and effective city government, and in this connection,shall:

xxx xxx xxx

(v)Enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress andimpose appropriate penalties for habitual drunkenness in
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnotes


7/125

public places, vagrancy, mendicancy, prostitution,establishment and maintenance of houses of illrepute, gambling and other prohibited games of chance,fraudulent devices and ways to obtain money or property,drug addiction, maintenance of drug dens, drug pushing,

juvenile delinquency, the printing, distribution or exhibitionof obscene or pornographic materials or publications, andsuch other activities inimical to the welfare and morals ofthe inhabitants of the city;

This section also authorizes the local government units to regulate properties andbusinesses within their territorial limits in the interest of the general welfare.5

The petitioners argue that by virtue of these provisions, the SangguniangPanlungsod may prohibit the operation and casinos because they involve games

of chance, which are detrimental to the people. Gambling is not allowed bygeneral law and even by the Constitution itself. The legislative power conferredupon local government units may be exercised over all kinds of gambling and notonly over "illegal gambling" as the respondents erroneously argue. Even if theoperation of casinos may have been permitted under P.D. 1869, the governmentof Cagayan de Oro City has the authority to prohibit them within its territorypursuant to the authority entrusted to it by the Local Government Code.

It is submitted that this interpretation is consonant with the policy of localautonomy as mandated in Article II, Section 25, and Article X of the Constitution,

as well as various other provisions therein seeking to strengthen the character ofthe nation. In giving the local government units the power to prevent orsuppress gambling and other social problems, the Local Government Code hasrecognized the competence of such communities to determine and adopt themeasures best expected to promote the general welfare of their inhabitants inline with the policies of the State.

The petitioners also stress that when the Code expressly authorized the localgovernment units to prevent and suppress gambling and other prohibited gamesof chance, like craps, baccarat, blackjack and roulette, it meant allforms of

gambling without distinction. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distingueredebemos.6Otherwise, it would have expressly excluded from the scope of theirpower casinos and other forms of gambling authorized by special law, as it couldhave easily done. The fact that it did not do so simply means that the localgovernment units are permitted to prohibit all kinds of gambling within theirterritories, including the operation of casinos. cdlex
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnotes


8/125

The adoption of the Local Government Code, it is pointed out, had the effect ofmodifying the charter of the PAGCOR. The Code is not only a later enactmentthan P.D. 1869 and so is deemed to prevail in case of inconsistencies betweenthem. More than this, the powers of the PAGCOR under the decree are expresslydiscontinued by the Code insofar as they do not conform to its philosophy andprovisions, pursuant to Par. (f) of its repealing clause reading as follows:

(f)All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executiveorders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or partsthereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Codeare hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

It is also maintained that assuming there is doubt regarding the effect of theLocal Government Code on P.D. 1869, the doubt must be resolved in favor of thepetitioners, in accordance with the direction in the Code calling for its liberal

interpretation in favor of the local government units. Section 5 of the Codespecifically provides:

Sec. 5.Rules of Interpretation. In the interpretation of theprovisions of this Code, the following rules shall apply:

(a)Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberallyinterpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shallbe resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower localgovernment unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of

the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unitconcerned;

xxx xxx xxx

(c)The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberallyinterpreted to give more powers to local government units inaccelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life forthe people in the community; . . . (Emphasis supplied.)

Finally, the petitioners also attack gambling as intrinsically harmful and cite

various provisions of the Constitution and several decisions of this Courtexpressive of the general and official disapprobation of the vice. They invoke theState policies on the family and the proper upbringing of the youth and, as mightbe expected, call attention to the old case of U.S. v. Salaveria,7which sustaineda municipal ordinance prohibiting the playing of panguingue. The petitionersdecry the immorality of gambling. They also impugn the wisdom of P.D. 1869(which they describe as "a martial law instrument") in creating PAGCOR and


9/125

authorizing it to operate casinos "on land and sea within the territorialjurisdiction of the Philippines." LexLib

This is the opportune time to stress an important point.

The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegalper se.While it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the people, there isnothing in the Constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or,for that matter, even mentioning it at all. It is left to Congress to deal with theactivity as it sees fit. In the exercise of its own discretion, the legislature mayprohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit someforms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may considersufficient. Thus, it has prohibitedjuetengand montebut permits lotteries,cockfighting and horse-racing. In making such choices, Congress has consultedits own wisdom, which this Court has no authority to review, much less reverse.Well has it been said that courts do no sit to resolve the merits of conflictingtheories.8That is the prerogative of the political departments. It is settled thatquestions regarding the wisdom, morality, or practicibility of statutes are notaddressed to the judiciary but may be resolved only by the legislative andexecutive departments, to which the function belongs in our scheme ofgovernment. That function is exclusive. Whichever way these branches decide,they are answerable only to their own conscience and the constituents who willultimately judge their acts, and not to the courts of justice. cda

The only question we can and shall resolve in this petition is the validity ofOrdinance No. 3355 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 as enacted by the SangguniangPanlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City. And we shall do so only by the criteria laiddown by law and not by our own convictions on the propriety of gambling.

The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions9hasheld to be valid, an ordinance must conform to the following substantiverequirements:

1)It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.

2)It must not be unfair or oppressive.

3)It must not be partial or discriminatory.

4)It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.

5)It must be general and consistent with public policy.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnotes


10/125

6)It must not be unreasonable.

We begin by observing that under Sec. 458 of the Local Government Code, localgovernment units are authorized to prevent or suppress, among others,"gambling and otherprohibited games of chance." Obviously, this provision

excludes games of chance which are not prohibited but are in fact permitted bylaw. The petitioners are less than accurate in claiming that the Code could haveexcluded such games of chance but did not. In fact it does. The language of thesection is clear and unmistakable. Under the rule of noscitur a sociis, a word orphrase should be interpreted in relation to, or given the same meaning of, wordswith which it is associated. Accordingly, we conclude that since the word"gambling" is associated with "and otherprohibited games of chance," the wordshould be read as referring to only illegal gambling which, likethe otherprohibited games of chance, must be prevented or suppressed.

We could stop here as this interpretation should settle the problem quiteconclusively. But we will not. The vigorous efforts of the petitioners on behalf ofthe inhabitants of Cagayan de Oro City, and the earnestness of their advocacy,deserve more than short shrift from this Court. LLpr

The apparent flaw in the ordinances in question is that they contravene P.D.1869 and the public policy embodied therein insofar as they prevent PAGCORfrom exercising the power conferred on it to the operate a casino in Cagayan deOro City. The petitioners have an ingenious answer to this misgiving. They denythat it is the ordinances that have changed P.D. 1869 for an ordinanceadmittedly cannot prevail against a statute. Their theory is that the change hasbeen made by the Local Government Code itself, which was also enacted by thenational lawmaking authority. In their view, the decree has been, not reallyrepealed by the Code, but merely "modified pro tanto"in the sense that PAGCORcannot now operate a casino over the objection of the local government unitconcerned. This modification of P.D. 1869 by the Local Government Code ispermissible because one law can change or repeal another law.

It seems to us that the petitioner are playing with words. While insisting that thedecree has only been "modifiedpro tanto," they are actually arguing that it isalready dead, repealed and useless for all intents and purposes because theCode has shorn PAGCOR of all power to centralize and regulate casinos. Strictlyspeaking, its operations may now be not only prohibited by the local governmentunit; in fact, the prohibition is not only discretionary by mandatedby Section 458


11/125

of the Code if the word "shall" as used therein is to be given its acceptedmeaning. Local government units have now on choice but to prevent andsuppress gambling, which in the petitioners' view includes both legal and illegalgambling. Under this construction, PAGCOR will have no more games of chanceto regulate or centralize as they must all be prohibited by the local governmentunits pursuant to the mandatory duty imposed upon them by the Code. In thissituation, PAGCOR cannot continue to exist except only as a toothless tiger or awhite elephant and will no longer be able to exercise its powers as a primesource of government revenue through the operation of casinos.

It is noteworthy that the petitioners have cited only Par. (f) of the repealingclause, conveniently discarding the rest of the provision which painstakinglymentions the specific laws or the parts thereof which are repealed (or modified)by the Code. Significantly, P.D. 1869 is not one of them. A reading of the entire

repealing clause, which is reproduced below, will disclose the omission:

SEC. 534.Repealing Clause. (a) Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, otherwiseknown as the Local Government Code." Executive Order No. 112 (1987),and Executive Order No. 319 (1988) are hereby repealed.

(b)Presidential Decree Nos. 684, 1191, 1508 and such other decrees,orders, instructions, memoranda and issuances related to or concerningthe barangay are hereby repealed. prLL

(c)The provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Republic Act No. 1939

regarding hospital fund; Section 3, a (3) and b (2) of Republic Act No.5447 regarding the Special Education Fund; Presidential Decree No. 144as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 559 and 1741; PresidentialDecree No. 231 as amended; Presidential Decree No. 436 as amendedby Presidential Decree No. 558; and Presidential Decree Nos. 381, 436,464, 477, 526, 632, 752, and 1136 are hereby repealed and rendered ofno force and effect.

(d)Presidential Decree No. 1594 is hereby repealed insofar as it governslocally-funded projects.

(e)The following provisions are hereby repealed or amended insofar asthey are inconsistent with the provisions of this Code: Sections 2, 16,and 29 of Presidential Decree No. 704; Section 12 of Presidential DecreeNo. 87, as amended; Sections 52, 53, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and74 of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended; and Section 16 ofPresidential Decree No. 972, as amended, and


12/125

(f)All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executiveorders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or partsthereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Codeare hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Furthermore, it is a familiar rule that implied repeals are not lightly presumed inthe absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such intention. In Lichauco& Co. v. Apostol,10this Court explained:

The cases relating to the subject of repeal by implication all proceed onthe assumption that if the act of later date clearly reveals an intention ofthe part of the lawmaking power to abrogate the prior law, this intentionmust be given effect; but there must always be a sufficient revelation ofthis intention, and it has become an unbending rule of statutoryconstruction that the intention to repeal a former law will not be

imputed to the Legislature when it appears that the two statutes, orprovisions, with reference to which the question arises bear to eachother the relation of general to special.

There is no sufficient indication of an implied repeal of P.D. 1869. On thecontrary, as the private respondent points, out, PAGCOR is mentioned as thesource of funding in two later enactments of Congress, to wit, R.A. 7309,creating a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice for the benefit ofvictims of unjust punishment or detention or of violent crimes, and R.A. 7648,providing for measures for the solution of the power crisis. PAGCOR revenues are

tapped by these two statutes. This would show that the PAGCOR charter has notbeen repealed by the Local Government Code but has in fact been improved as itwere to make the entity more responsive to the fiscal problems of thegovernment.

It is a canon of legal hermeneutics that instead of pitting one statute againstanother in an inevitably destructive confrontation, courts must exert every effortto reconcile them, remembering that both laws deserve a becoming respect asthe handiwork of a coordinate branch of the government. On the assumption ofa conflict between P.D. 1869 and the Code, the proper action is not to uphold

one and annul the other but to give effect to both by harmonizing them ifpossible. This is possible in the case before us. The proper resolution of theproblem at hand is to hold that under the Local Government Code, localgovernment units may (and indeed must) prevent and suppress all kinds ofgambling within their territories except only those allowed by statutes like P.D.1869. The exception reserved in such laws must be read in the Code, to makeboth the Code and such laws equally effective and mutually complementary.


13/125

This approach would also affirm that there are indeed two kinds of gambling, towit, the illegal and those authorized by law. Legalized gambling is not a modernconcept; it is probably as old as illegal gambling, if not indeed more so. Thepetitioners' suggestion that the Code authorizes them to prohibit all kinds ofgambling would erase the distinction between these two forms of gamblingwithout a clear indication that this is the will of the legislature. Plausibly,following this theory, the City of Manila could, by mere ordinance, prohibit thePhilippine Charity Sweepstakes Office from conducting a lottery as authorized byR.A. 1169 and B.P. 42 or stop the races at the San Lazaro Hippodrome asauthorized by R.A. 309 and R.A. 983. LexLib

In light of all the above considerations, we see no way of arriving at theconclusion urged on us by the petitioners that the ordinances in question arevalid. On the contrary, we find that the ordinances violate P.D. 1869, which has

the character and force of a statute, as well as the public policy expressed in thedecree allowing the playing of certain games of chance despite the prohibition ofgambling in general.

The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene astatute is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of the nationalgovernment. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferredon them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot besuperior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is aheresy 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.

Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers andrights wholly from the legislature. It breathes into them the breath oflife, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. Asit may destroy, it may abridge and control. Unless there is someconstitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might, by a singleact, and if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great awrong, sweep from existence all of the municipal corporations in theState, and the corporation could not prevent it. We know of no limitation

on the right so far as to the corporation themselves are concerned. Theyare, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature.11

This basic relationship between the national legislature and the local governmentunits has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitutionstrengthening the policy of local autonomy. Without meaning to detract fromthat policy, we here confirm that Congress retains control of the local


14/125

government units although in significantly reduced degree now than under ourprevious Constitutions. The power to create still includes the power to destroy.The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True, there arecertain notable innovations in the Constitution, like the direct conferment on thelocal government units of the power to tax,12which cannot now be withdrawnby mere statute. By and large, however, the national legislature is still theprincipal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify orviolate it.

The Court understands and admires the concern of the petitioners for thewelfare of their constituents and their apprehensions that the welfare of Cagayande Oro City will be endangered by the opening of the casino. We share the viewthat "the hope of large or easy gain, obtained without special effort, turns thehead of the workman"13and that "habitual gambling is a cause of laziness andruin."14In People v. Gorostiza,15we declared: "The social scourge of gamblingmust be stamped out. The laws against gambling must be enforced to the limit."George Washington called gambling "the child of avarice, the brother of iniquityand the father of mischief." Nevertheless, we must recognize the power of thelegislature to decide, in its own wisdom, to legalize certain forms of gambling, aswas done in P.D. 1869 in impliedly affirmed in the Local Government Code. Thatdecision can be revoked by this Court only if it contravenes the Constitution asthe touchstone of all official acts. We do not find such contravention here.

We hold that the power of PAGCOR to centralize and regulate all games ofchance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of thePhilippines, remains unimpaired. P.D. 1869 has not been modified by the LocalGovernment Code, which empowers the local government units to prevent orsuppress only those forms of gambling prohibited by law. llcd

Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of astatute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it wasnot competent for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact

Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casinoand Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all theirpraiseworthy motives, these ordinance are contrary to P.D. 1869 and the publicpolicy announced therein and are therefore ultra viresand void.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15695?search=%28Magtajas+vs.+Pryce+Properties%29#footnotes


15/125

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

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason,

Puno, Vitug, Kapunanand Mendoza, JJ.,concur.

Padilla, J. and Davide, Jr., JJ., see separate opinion.


16/125

.R. Nos. 120865-71. December 7, 1995.]

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS; HON.JUDGE HERCULANO TECH, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH70, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BINANGONAN, RIZAL;FLEET DEVELOPMENT, INC. and CARLITO ARROYO; THEMUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDROB. PACIS,respondents.

[G.R. No. 120866. December 7, 1995.]

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON.JUDGE AURELIO C. TRAMPE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH163, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG; MANILA MARINELIFE BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC. represented by MR.TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO; MUNICIPALITY OFTAGUIG, METRO MANILA and/or MAYOR RICARDO D.PAPA, JR., respondents.

[G.R. No. 120867. December 7, 1995.]

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS; HON.JUDGE ALEJANDRO A. MARQUEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE,BRANCH 79, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL;GREENFIELD VENTURES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION and R.J. ORION DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/orMAYOR WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 120868. December 7, 1995.]

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON.JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA, PRESIDING JUDGE,BRANCH 162, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METROMANILA; IRMA FISHING & TRADING CORP.; ARTM


17/125

FISHING CORP.; BDR CORPORATION, MIRTCORPORATION and TRIM CORPORATION; MUNICIPALITYOF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B.PACIS,respondents.

[G.R. No. 120869. December 7, 1995.]

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON.JUDGE ARTURO A. MARAVE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH78, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; BLUELAGOON FISHING CORP. and ALCRIS CHICKEN GROWERS,INC.; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYORWALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 120870. December 7, 1995.]

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON.JUDGE ARTURO A. MARAVE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH78, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; AGPFISH VENTURES, INC., represented by its PRESIDENT

ALFONSO PUYAT; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or

MAYOR WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA,respondents.

[G.R. No. 120871. December 7, 1995.]

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON.JUDGE EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, PRESIDING JUDGE,BRANCH 161, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO

MANILA; SEA MAR TRADING CO., INC.; EASTERN LAGOON

FISHING CORP.; MINAMAR FISHING CORP.;MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDROB. PACIS, respondents.

Alberto N. Hidalgo, Ma. Teresa Oledanand N. Hocson for Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority.


18/125

The Solicitor Generalfor public respondents.

Efren N. de la Cruzfor Fleet Dev't. & C. Arroyo.

Santiago, Nalus & Associates Law Offices for Blue Lagoon Fishing Corp., Alcris

Chicken Growers, Inc. & AGP Fish Ventures, Inc.

Castro Law Officeand Jaime M. Padilla for Manila Marine Life BusinessResources.

Teresita A. Agbiand Camilo R. Flores for Irma Fishing & Trading Corp., et al.

Victorino, Solis, Medina, & Magno Law Officesfor private respondents.

SYLLABUS

1.STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; CONFLICT BETWEEN A GENERAL LAW AND ASPECIAL LAW; RULE; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. It has to be concededthat the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority constitutes a speciallaw. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, is a generallaw. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislationwhich is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. It is awell settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special statute, provided for aparticular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general

in its terms, provisions and application, unless the intent to repeal or alter ismanifest, although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include thecases embraced in the special law. Where there is a conflict between a generallaw and a special statute, the special statute should prevail since it evinces thelegislative intent more clearly than the general statute. The special law is to betaken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstancesforcing a contrary conclusion. This is because implied repeals are not favoredand as much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of thelegislature. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by asubsequent general law by mere implication. Thus, it has to be concluded that

the charter of the Authority should prevail over the Local Government Code of1991.

2.POLITICAL LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160; DOES NOTCONTAIN ANY EXPRESS PROVISION CATEGORICALLY REPEALING THECHARTER OF THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. We hold thatthe provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 do not necessarily repeal the


19/125

aforementioned laws creating the Laguna Lake Development Authority andgranting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lakeregion. The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any expressprovision which categorically expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It hasto be conceded that there was no intent on the part of the legislature to repealRepublic Act No. 4850 and its amendments. The repeal of laws should be madeclear and expressed. CSIDEc

3.ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES; LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY;A REGULATORY AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY. In respect to the question as towhether the Authority is a quasi-judicial agency or not, it is our holding that,considering the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 4850 and Section 4 ofExecutive Order No. 927, series of 1983, and the ruling of this Court in LagunaLake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals,231 SCRA 304, 306, which we

quote: ". . . As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generallypertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases where thespecial law provides for another forum. It must be recognized in this regard thatthe LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, is specifically mandated underRepublic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out and make effectivethe declared national policy of promoting and accelerating the development andbalanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizaland Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocanwith due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management andcontrol, preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the

prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. Undersuch a broad grant of power and authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its specialcharter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the LagunaLake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from thedischarge of wastes from the surrounding areas. In carrying out theaforementioned declared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among others, to passupon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs, and projects proposed bylocal government offices/agencies within the region, public corporations, andprivate persons or enterprises where such plans, programs and/or projects arerelated to those of the LLDA for the development of the region. . . . While it is a

fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as areexpressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an administrativeagency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the exercise of itsexpress powers. In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers under itscharter, as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases inthe Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a 'cease and desistorder' is, perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a 'toothless'


20/125

paper agency." There is no question that the Authority has express powers as aregulatory and quasi-judicial body in respect to pollution cases with authority toissue a "cease and desist order" and on matters affecting the construction ofillegal fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in Laguna de Bay.The Authority's pretense, however, that it is co-equal to the Regional Trial Courtssuch that all actions against it may only be instituted before the Court of Appealscannot be sustained. On actions necessitating the resolution of legal questionsaffecting the powers of the Authority as provided for in its charter, the RegionalTrial Courts have jurisdiction.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THEENJOYMENT OF FISHERY PRIVILEGES IN LAGUNA DE BAY TO THE EXCLUSIONOF MUNICIPALITIES SITUATED THEREIN AND THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISESUCH POWERS AS ARE BY ITS CHARTER VESTED ON IT. This Court holds

that Section 149 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the LocalGovernment Code of 1991, has not repealed the provisions of the charter of theLaguna Lake Development Authority, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended. Thus,the Authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment offishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of municipalities situatedtherein and the authority to exercise such powers as are by its charter vested onit. Removal from the Authority of the aforesaid licensing authority will rendernugatory its avowed purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna LakeRegion. Otherwise stated, the abrogation of this power would render useless itsreason for being and will in effect denigrate, if not abolish, the Laguna Lake

Development Authority. This, the Local Government Code of 1991 had neverintended to do. CaSHAc

D E C I S I O N

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J p:

It is difficult for a man, scavenging on the garbage dump created by affluence

and profligate consumption and extravagance of the rich or fishing in the murkywaters of the Pasig River and the Laguna Lake or making a clearing in the forestso that he can produce food for his family, to understand why protecting birds,fish, and trees is more important than protecting him and keeping his familyalive. cdtai


21/125

How do we strike a balance between environmental protection, on the one hand,and the individual personal interests of people, on the other?

Towards environmental protection and ecology, navigational safety, andsustainable development, Republic Act No. 4850 created the "Laguna Lake

Development Authority." This Government Agency is supposed to carry out andeffectuate the aforesaid declared policy, so as to accelerate the development andbalanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, citiesand towns, in the act clearly named, within the context of the national andregional plans and policies for social and economic development.

Presidential Decree No. 813 of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos amendedcertain sections of Republic Act No. 4850 because of the concern for the rapidexpansion of Metropolitan Manila, the suburbs and the lakeshore towns ofLaguna de Bay, combined with current and prospective uses of the lake formunicipal-industrial water supply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like. Concern onthe part of the Government and the general public over: the environmentimpact of development on the water quality and ecology of the lake and itsrelated river systems; the inflow of polluted water from the Pasig River,industrial, domestic and agricultural wastes from developed areas around thelake; the increasing urbanization which induced the deterioration of the lake,since water quality studies have shown that the lake will deteriorate further ifsteps are not taken to check the same; and the floods in Metropolitan Manilaarea and the lakeshore towns which will influence the hydraulic system of

Laguna de Bay, since any scheme of controlling the floods will necessarily involvethe lake and its river systems, likewise gave impetus to the creation of theAuthority.

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4850 was amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 1.Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be thenational policy to promote, and accelerate the development andbalanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surroundingprovinces, cities and towns hereinafter referred to as the region, withinthe context of the national and regional plans and policies for social andeconomic development and to carry out the development of the LagunaLake region with due regard and adequate provisions for environmentalmanagement and control, preservation of the quality of human life andecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances,deterioration and pollution."1

Special powers of the Authority, pertinent to the issues in this case, include:
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnotes


22/125

"SEC. 3.Section 4 of the same Act is hereby further amended by addingthereto seven new paragraphs to be known as paragraphs (j), (k), (l),(m), (n), (o), and (p) which shall read as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

'(j)The provisions of existing laws to the contrarynotwithstanding, to engage in fish production and other aqua-culture projects in Laguna de Bay and other bodies of waterwithin its jurisdiction and in pursuance thereof to conduct studiesand make experiments, whenever necessary, with thecollaboration and assistance of the Bureau of Fisheries and

Aquatic Resources, with the end in view of improving presenttechniques and practices. Provided, that until modified, altered oramended by the procedure provided in the following sub-paragraph, the present laws, rules and permits or authorizationsremain in force;

(k)For the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoringactivities in Laguna de Bay, the Authority shall have exclusive

jurisdiction to issue new permit for the use of the lake waters forany projects or activities in or affecting the said lake includingnavigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fishenclosures, fish corrals and the like, and to impose necessarysafeguards for lake quality control and management and tocollect necessary fees for said activities and projects: Provided,

That the fees collected for fisheries may be shared between theAuthority and other government agencies and political sub-divisions in such proportion as may be determined by thePresident of the Philippines upon recommendation of the

Authority's Board: Provided, further, That the Authority's Boardmay determine new areas of fishery development or activitieswhich it may place under the supervision of the Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources taking into account the overalldevelopment plans and programs for Laguna de Bay and relatedbodies of water: Provided, finally, That the Authority shall subjectto the approval of the President of the Philippines promulgate

such rules and regulations which shall govern fisheriesdevelopment activities in Laguna de Bay which shall take intoconsideration among others the following: socio-economicamelioration of bonafide resident fishermen whether individuallyor collectively in the form of cooperatives, lakeshore towndevelopment, a master plan for fishpen construction andoperation, communal fishing ground for lake shore town


23/125

residents, and preference to lake shore town residents in hiringlaborers for fishery projects;

(l)To require the cities and municipalities embraced within theregion to pass appropriate zoning ordinances and other

regulatory measures necessary to carry out the objectives of theAuthority and enforce the same with the assistance of theAuthority;

(m)The provisions of existing laws to the contrarynotwithstanding, to exercise water rights over public waterswithin the Laguna de Bay region whenever necessary to carry outthe Authority's projects;

(n)To act in coordination with existing governmental agencies inestablishing water quality standards for industrial, agricultural and

municipal waste discharges into the lake and to cooperate withsaid existing agencies of the government of the Philippines inenforcing such standards, or to separately pursue enforcementand penalty actions as provided for in Section 4 (d) and Section39-A of this Act: Provided, That in case of conflict on theappropriate water quality standard to be enforced such conflictshall be resolved thru the NEDA Board;'"2

To more effectively perform the role of the Authority under Republic Act No.4850, as though Presidential Decree No. 813 were not thought to be completely

effective, the Chief Executive, feeling that the land and waters of the LagunaLake Region are limited natural resources requiring judicious management totheir optimal utilization to insure renewability and to preserve the ecologicalbalance, the competing options for the use of such resources and conflicting

jurisdictions over such uses having created undue constraints on the institutionalcapabilities of the Authority in the light of the limited powers vested in it by itscharter, Executive Order No. 927 further defined and enlarged the functions andpowers of the Authority and named and enumerated the towns, cities andprovinces encompassed by the term "Laguna de Bay Region".

Also, pertinent to the issues in this case are the following provisions of ExecutiveOrder No. 927 which include in particular the sharing of fees:

"SEC. 2.Water Rights Over Laguna de Bay and Other Bodies of Waterwithin the Lake Region: To effectively regulate and monitor activities inthe Laguna de Bay region, the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdictionto issue permit for the use of all surface water for any projects or
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnotes


24/125

activities in or affecting the said region including navigation,construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals andthe like.

For the purpose of this Executive Order, the term 'Laguna de Bay

Region' shall refer to the Provinces of Rizal and Laguna; the Cities of SanPablo, Pasay, Caloocan, Quezon, Manila and Tagaytay; the towns ofTanauan, Sto. Tomas and Malvar in Batangas Province; the towns ofSilang and Carmona in Cavite Province; the town of Lucban in QuezonProvince; and the towns of Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Muntinlupa, andPateros in Metro Manila.

SEC. 3.Collection of Fees. The Authority is hereby empowered tocollect fees for the use of the lake water and its tributaries for allbeneficial purposes including but not limited to fisheries, recreation,municipal, industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation, and wastedisposal purpose; Provided, that the rates of the fees to be collected,and the sharing with other government agencies and politicalsubdivisions, if necessary, shall be subject to the approval of thePresident of the Philippinesupon recommendation of the Authority'sBoard, except fishpen fee, which will be shared in the followingmanner: 20 percent of the fee shall go to the lakeshore localgovernments, 5 percent shall go to the Project Development Fund whichshall be administered by a Council and the remaining 75 percent shallconstitute the share of LLDA. However, after the implementation withinthe three-year period of the Laguna Lake Fishery Zoning and

Management Planthe sharing will be modified as follows:35 percent ofthe fishpen fee goes to the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent goesto the Project Development Fund and the remaining 60 percent shall beretained by LLDA; Provided, however, that the share of LLDA shall formpart of its corporate funds and shall not be remitted to the NationalTreasury as an exception to the provisions of Presidential Decree No.1234." (Italics for emphasis)

It is important to note that Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 813 defined theterm "Laguna Lake" in this manner:

"SECTION 41.Definition of Terms.

(11)Laguna Lake or Lake.Whenever Laguna Lake or lake is used in thisAct, the same shall refer to Laguna de Bay which is that area covered bythe lake water when it is at the average level of elevation 12.50 meters,as referred to a datum 10.00 meters below mean lower low water


25/125

(M.L.L.W.). Lands located at and below such elevation are public landswhich form part of the bed of said lake."

Then came Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. Themunicipalities in the Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this law tomean that the newly passed law gave municipal governments the exclusive

jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters because R.A.7160 provides:

"Sec. 149.Fishery Rentals; Fees and Charges. (a) Municipalities shallhave the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipalwaters and impose rental fees or charges therefor in accordance withthe provisions of this Section. LLjur

(b)The Sangguniang Bayan may:

(1)Grant fishing privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussel or otheraquatic beds or bangus fry areas within a definite zone of the municipalwaters, as determined by it; . . .

(2)Grant privilege to gather, take or catch bangus fry, prawn fryor kawag-kawag or fry of other species and fish from the municipalwaters by nets, traps or other fishing gears to marginal fishermen freefrom any rental fee, charges or any other imposition whatsoever.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 447.Power, Duties, Functions and Compensation. . . . .

(1). . .

(2). . .

(XI)Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, grant exclusiveprivileges of constructing fish corrals or fishpens, or the taking orcatching of bangus fry, prawn fry or kawag-kawagor fry of any speciesor fish within the municipal waters.

xxx xxx xxx."

Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to issue fishingprivileges and fishpen permits. Big fishpen operators took advantage of the


26/125

occasion to establish fishpens and fishcages to the consternation of theAuthority. Unregulated fishpens and fishcages, as of July, 1995, occupied almostone-third of the entire lake water surface area, increasing the occupationdrastically from 7,000 hectares in 1990 to almost 21,000 hectares in 1995. TheMayor's permit to construct fishpens and fishcages were all undertaken inviolation of the policies adopted by the Authority on fishpen zoning and theLaguna Lake carrying capacity.

To be sure, the implementation by the lakeshore municipalities of separateindependent policies in the operation of fishpens and fishcages within theirclaimed territorial municipal waters in the lake and their indiscriminate grant offishpens permits have already saturated the lake area with fishpens, therebyaggravating the current environmental problems and ecological stress of LagunaLake.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Authority served notice to thegeneral public that:

"In compliance with the instructions of His Excellency PRESIDENT FIDELV. RAMOS given on June 23, 1993 at Pila, Laguna, pursuant to RepublicAct 4850 as amended by Presidential Decree 813 and Executive Order927 series of 1983 and in line with the policies and programs of thePresidential Task Force on Illegal Fishpens and Illegal Fishing, thegeneral public is hereby notified that:

1.All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Lagunade Bay Region, which were not registered or to which noapplication for registration and/or permit has been filed withLaguna Lake Development Authority as of March 31, 1993 arehereby declared outrightly as illegal.

2.All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures so declaredas illegal shall be subject to demolition which shall be undertakenby the Presidential Task Force for Illegal Fishpen and IllegalFishing.

3.Owners of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structuresdeclared as illegal shall, without prejudice to demolition of theirstructures be criminally charged in accordance with Section 39-Aof Republic Act 4850 as amended by P.D. 813 for violation of thesame laws. Violations of these laws carries a penalty ofimprisonment of not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceedingFive Thousand Pesos or both at the discretion of the court.


27/125

All operators of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structuresdeclared as illegal in accordance with the foregoing Notice shall haveone (1) month on or before 27 October 1993 to show cause before theLLDA why their said fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culturestructures should not be demolished/dismantled." cdlex

One month, thereafter, the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners ofthe illegally constructed fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structuresadvising them to dismantle their respective structures within 10 days fromreceipt thereof, otherwise, demolition shall be effected.

Reacting thereto, the affected fishpen owners filed injunction cases against theAuthority before various regional trial courts, to wit: (a) Civil Case No. 759-B, forProhibition, Injunction and Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70,Binangonan, Rizal, filed by Fleet Development, Inc. and Carlito Arroyo; (b) Civil

Case No. 64049, for Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig, filed byIRMA Fishing and Trading Corp., ARTM Fishing Corp., BDR Corp., MIRT Corp.and TRIM Corp.; (c) Civil Case No. 566, for Declaratory Relief and Injunction,Regional Trial Court, Branch 163, Pasig, filed by Manila Marine Life BusinessResources, Inc. and Tobias Reynaldo M. Tianco; (d) Civil Case No. 556-M, forProhibition, Injunction and Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong,Rizal, filed by AGP Fishing Ventures, Inc.; (e) Civil Case No. 522-M, forProhibition, Injunction and Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong,Rizal, filed by Blue Lagoon and Alcris Chicken Growers, Inc.; (f) Civil Case No.554, for Certiorari and Prohibition, Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Morong,

Rizal, filed by Greenfields Ventures Industrial Corp. and R.J. Orion DevelopmentCorp.; and (g) Civil Case No. 64124, for Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch15, Pasig, filed by SEA-MAR Trading Co., Inc. and Eastern Lagoon Fishing Corp.and Minamar Fishing Corporation.

The Authority filed motions to dismiss the cases against it on jurisdictionalgrounds. The motions to dismiss were invariably denied. Meanwhile, temporaryrestraining order/writs of preliminary mandatory injunction were issued in CivilCases Nos. 64124, 759 and 566 enjoining the Authority from demolishing thefishpens and similar structures in question.

Hence, the herein petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction, G.RNos. 120865-71, were filed by the Authority with this court. Impleaded asparties-respondents are concerned regional trial courts and respective privateparties, and the municipalities and/or respective Mayors of Binangonan, Taguigand Jala-jala, who issued permits for the construction and operation of fishpensin Laguna de Bay. The Authority sought the following reliefs, viz.:


28/125

"(A)Nullification of the temporary restraining order/writs of preliminaryinjunction issued in Civil Cases Nos. 64125, 759 and 566;

(B)Permanent prohibition against the regional trial courts fromexercising jurisdiction over cases involving the Authority which is a co-

equal body;

(C)Judicial pronouncement that R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code of1991) did not repeal, alter or modify the provisions of R.A. 4850, asamended, empowering the Authority to issue permits for fishpens,fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in Laguna de Bay and that,the Authority the government agency vested with exclusive authority toissue said permits."

By this Court's resolution of May 2, 1994, the Authority's consolidated petitionswere referred to the Court of Appeals.

In a Decision, dated June 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed theAuthority's consolidated petitions, the Court of Appeals holding that: (A) LLDA isnot among those quasi-judicial agencies of government whose decision or orderare appealable only to the Court of Appeals; (B) the LLDA charter does vestLLDA with quasi-judicial functions insofar as fishpens are concerned; (C) theprovisions of the LLDA charter insofar as fishing privileges in Laguna de Bay areconcerned had been repealed by the Local Government Code of 1991; (D) inview of the aforesaid repeal, the power to grant permits devolved to respective

local government units concerned.

Not satisfied with the Court of Appeals decision, the Authority has returned tothis Court charging the following errors:

"1.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS PROBABLY COMMITTED ANERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY IS NOT A QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY.

2.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORWHEN IT RULED THAT R.A. 4850 AS AMENDED BY P.D. 813 AND E.O.

927 SERIES OF 1983 HAS BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT 7160.THE SAID RULING IS CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES ANDJURISPRUDENCE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

3.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORWHEN IT RULED THAT THE POWER TO ISSUE FISHPEN PERMITS IN


29/125

LAGUNA DE BAY HAS BEEN DEVOLVED TO CONCERNED (LAKESHORE)LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS."

We take a simplistic view of the controversy. Actually, the main and only issueposed is: Which agency of the Government the Laguna Lake Development

Authority or the towns and municipalities comprising the region

shouldexercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as theissuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned?

Section 4 (k) of the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, RepublicAct No. 4850, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 813, and Section 2 ofExecutive Order No. 927, cited above, specifically provide that the Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for theuse of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the saidregion, including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish

enclosures, fish corrals and the like. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 7160,the Local Government Code of 1991, has granted to the municipalities theexclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters. TheSangguniang Bayan may grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster,mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry area within a definite zone of themunicipal waters. cdll

We hold that the provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 do not necessarily repeal

the aforementioned laws creating the Laguna Lake Development Authority andgranting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lakeregion.

The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provisionwhich categorically expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It has to beconceded that there was no intent on the part of the legislature to repealRepublic Act No. 4850 and its amendments. The repeal of laws should be madeclear and expressed.

It has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake DevelopmentAuthority constitutes a special law. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local GovernmentCode of 1991, is a general law. It is basic in statutory construction that theenactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed tohave repealed a special law. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that "aspecial statute, provided for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed bya subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions and application, unless the


30/125

intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the general law arebroad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law."3

Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, the specialstatute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the

general statute. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general lawin the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. This isbecause implied repeals are not favored and as much as possible, effect must begiven to all enactments of the legislature. A special law cannot be repealed,amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication.4

Thus, it has to be concluded that the charter of the Authority should prevail overthe Local Government Code of 1991.

Considering the reasons behind the establishment of the Authority, which are

environmental protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development,there is every indication that the legislative intent is for the Authority to proceedwith its mission.

We are on all fours with the manifestation of petitioner Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority that "Laguna de Bay, like any other single body of waterhas its own unique natural ecosystem. The 900 km2lake surface water, the eight(8) major river tributaries and several other smaller rivers that drain into thelake, the 2,920 km2basin or watershed transcending the boundaries of Lagunaand Rizal provinces, constitute one integrated delicate natural ecosystem thatneeds to be protected with uniform set of policies; if we are to be serious in ouraims of attaining sustainable development. This is an exhaustible naturalresource a very limited one which requires judicious management andoptimal utilization to ensure renewability and preserve its ecological integrity andbalance."

"Managing the lake resources would mean the implementation of a nationalpolicy geared towards the protection, conservation, balanced growth andsustainable development of the region with due regard to the inter-generational

use of its resources by the inhabitants in this part of the earth. The authors ofRepublic Act 4850 have foreseen this need when they passed this LLDA law the special law designed to govern the management of our Laguna de Bay lakeresources."

"Laguna de Bay therefore cannot be subjected to fragmented concepts ofmanagement policies where lakeshore local government units exercise exclusive
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnotes


31/125

dominion over specific portions of the lake water. The garbage thrown or sewagedischarged into the lake, abstraction of water therefrom or construction offishpens by enclosing its certain area, affect not only that specific portion but theentire 900 km2of lake water. The implementation of a cohesive and integratedlake water resource management policy, therefore, is necessary to conserve,protect and sustainably develop Laguna de Bay." 5

The power of the local government units to issue fishing privileges was clearlygranted for revenue purposes. This is evident from the fact that Section 149 ofthe New Local Government Code empowering local governments to issue fishingpermits is embodied in Chapter 2, Book II, of Republic Act No. 7160 under theheading, "Specific Provisions On The Taxing And Other Revenue Raising Powerof Local Government Units."

On the other hand, the power of the Authority to grant permits for fishpens,fishcages and other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectivelyregulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region (Section 2,Executive Order No. 927) and for lake quality control and management. 6It doespartake of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive, the leastlimitable and the most demanding of all State powers including the power oftaxation. Accordingly, the charter of the Authority which embodies a validexercise of police power should prevail over the Local Government Code of 1991on matters affecting Laguna de Bay.

There should be no quarrel over permit fees for fishpens, fishcages and otheraqua-culture structures in the Laguna de Bay area. Section 3 of Executive OrderNo. 927 provides for the proper sharing of fees collected.

In respect to the question as to whether the Authority is a quasi-judicial agencyor not, it is our holding that, considering the provisions of Section 4 of Republic

Act No. 4850 and Section 4 of Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, and theruling of this Court in Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals,231 SCRA 304, 306, which we quote:

"xxx xxx xxx

As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertainsto the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases where thespecial law provides for another forum. It must be recognized in thisregard that the LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, isspecifically mandated under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatorylaws to carry out and make effective the declared national policy of
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/14896?search=gr%3A+%28120865-71%2A%29#footnotes


32/125

promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth ofthe Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal andLaguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocanwith due regard and adequate provisions for environmentalmanagement and control, preservation of the quality of human life and

ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances,deterioration and pollution. Under such a broad grant of power andauthority, the LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, obviously has theresponsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region fromthe deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge ofwastes from the surrounding areas. In carrying out the aforementioneddeclared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among others, to pass upon andapprove or disapprove all plans, programs, and projects proposed bylocal government offices/agencies within the region, public corporations,and private persons or enterprises where such plans, programs and/orprojects are related to those of the LLDA for the development of theregion.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . . While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency hasonly such powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise asettled rule that an administrative agency has also such powers as arenecessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers. In the exercise,therefore, of its express powers under its charter, as a regulatory andquasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake

region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a 'cease and desist order' is,perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a 'toothless'paper agency." cda

There is noquestion that the Authority has express powers as a regulatory andquasi-judicial body in respect to pollution cases with authority to issue a "ceaseand desist order" and on matters affecting the construction of illegal fishpens,fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in Laguna de Bay. The Authority'spretense, however, that it is co-equal to the Regional Trial Courts such that allactions against it may only be instituted before the Court of Appeals cannot be

sustained. On actions necessitating the resolution of legal questions affecting thepowers of the Authority as provided for in its charter, the Regional Trial Courtshave jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Section 149 of Republic Act No.7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, has not repealedthe provisions of the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority,


33/125

Republic Act No. 4850, as amended. Thus, the Authority has the exclusivejurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna deBay to the exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority toexercise such powers as are by its charter vested on it.

Removal from the Authority of the aforesaid licensing authority will rendernugatory its avowed purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna LakeRegion. Otherwise stated, the abrogation of this power would render useless itsreason for being and will in effect denigrate, if not abolish, the Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority. This, the Local Government Code of 1991 had neverintended to do.

WHEREFORE, the petitions for prohibition, certiorariand injunction are herebygranted, insofar as they relate to the authority of the Laguna Lake Development

Authority to grant fishing privileges within the Laguna Lake Region.

The restraining orders and/or writs of injunction issued by Judge Arturo Marave,RTC, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal; Judge Herculano Tech, RTC, Branch 70,Binangonan, Rizal; and Judge Aurelio Trampe, RTC, Branch 163, Pasig, MetroManila, are hereby declared null and void and ordered set aside for having beenissued with grave abuse of discretion.

The Municipal Mayors of the Laguna Lake Region are hereby prohibited fromissuing permits to construct and operate fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures within the Laguna Lake Region, their previous issuances beingdeclared null and void. Thus, the fishing permits issued by Mayors Isidro B.Pacis, Municipality of Binangonan; Ricardo D. Papa, Municipality of Taguig; andWalfredo M. de la Vega, Municipality of Jala-jala, specifically, are likewisedeclared null and void and ordered cancelled.

The fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures put up by operators byvirtue of permits issued by Municipal Mayors within the Laguna Lake Region,specifically, permits issued to Fleet Development, Inc. and Carlito Arroyo; ManilaMarine Life Business Resources, Inc., represented by, Mr. Tobias Reynald M.Tiangco; Greenfield Ventures Industrial Development Corporation and R.J. OrionDevelopment Corporation; IRMA Fishing And Trading Corporation, ARTM FishingCorporation, BDR Corporation, Mirt Corporation and Trim Corporation; BlueLagoon Fishing Corporation and ALCRIS Chicken Growers, Inc.; AGP Fish

Ventures, Inc., represented by its President Alfonso Puyat; SEA MAR Trading Co.,


34/125

Inc., Eastern Lagoon Fishing Corporation, and MINAMAR Fishing Corporation, arehereby declared illegal structures subject to demolition by the Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ.,concur.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J .,concurring:

I fully concur with the decision written by Mr. Justice R. Hermosisima, Jr. I wouldonly like to stress what the decision already states, i.e., that the local

government units in the Laguna Lake area are not precluded from imposingpermits on fishery operations for revenue raising purposes of such localgovernment units. In other words, while the exclusive jurisdiction to determinewhether or not projects or activities in the lake area should be allowed, as wellas their regulation, is with the Laguna Lake Development Authority, once the

Authority grants a permit, the permittee may still be subjected to an additionallocal permit or license for revenue purposes of the local government unitsconcerned. This approach would clearly harmonize the special law, Rep. Act No.4850, as amended, with Rep. Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code. It willalso enable small towns and municipalities in the lake area, like Jala-Jala, to riseto some level of economic viability. LLpr


35/125

[G.R. No. 136809. July 27, 2004.]

DEMOCRITO D. PLAZA II and VIRGINIA V.TUAZON,petitioners, vs. CAROLINA M. CASSION, ALBERTAM. SAMPAYAN, JOSEPHINE NATALIA U. LOPEZ, JOCELYNM. ALMANZOR, LUZVIMINDA G. ARDECER, MAGDALENA S.BALACUIT, WINDELYN B. CABUSAO, JULIETA R.JANDAYAN, NERI O. SAMUYA, INES V. YAOYAO, TERESITAI. ROSALES, MARIA DEBRA M. LANAJA, RUTH O.NICOLASURA,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,J p:

Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991,aims to transform local government units into self-reliant communities and activepartners of the national government in the attainment of effective services to thepeople. As a result of the devolution of concerned personnel from the nationalgovernment to the various local government units pursuant to the same Code,

the interest of the service demands that their working relations with the localemployees should be harmonious.

This is a petition for review on certiorari1assailing the Decision2of the Court ofAppeals dated February 14, 1996 and its Resolution dated December 9, 1998 inCA-G.R. SP No. 55052, "Carolina M. Cassion, et al.vs.Civil Service Commission,et al."

Before the passage of Republic Act No. 7160, the task of delivering basic socialserviceswas dispensed by the national government through the Department of

Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Upon the promulgation andimplementation of the Local Government Code, some of the functions of theDSWD were transferred to the local government units.

The City of Butuan, through its Sangguniang Panglungsod(Sanggunian) passedSP Resolution 427-92,3entitled "Resolution Authorizing the City Mayor,
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/8236?search=%28Plaza+II+vs.+Cassion%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/8236?search=%28Plaza+II+vs.+Cassion%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/8236?search=%28Plaza+II+vs.+Cassion%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/8236?search=%28Plaza+II+vs.+Cassion%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/8236?search=%28Plaza+II+vs.+Cassion%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/8236?search=%28Plaza+II+vs.+Cassion%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/82

public corp cases- 3

Documents