View full case

ALFREDO S. LIM v. FELIPE G. PACQUING

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute between the City of Manila and a private respondent regarding the operation of a jai-alai fronton. The private respondent was granted a franchise to establish and operate the jai-alai under Ordinance No. 7065. The petitioner had already begun fulfilling its obligations under the franchise when it faced hindrances preventing it from fully operating the jai-alai.

The trial court granted the petitioner's petition and ordered the City of Manila to issue the necessary permit/license pursuant to Ordinance No. 7065. The Mayor of Manila appealed the decision but later withdrew the appeal, and the Court of Appeals considered the appeal withdrawn. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court became final and executory.

However, the City of Manila later filed an action to annul the franchise, claiming abandonment and repeal of the ordinance. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, noting that the issue of abandonment had already been resolved in a previous case and that the city had waived the defense of repeal. The city did not appeal the dismissal.

Furthermore, the city filed a case for declaratory judgment to nullify the franchise, but it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, three Manila councilors filed a case to compel the Mayor to cancel the permit and license, but the Mayor argued that he was acting in obedience to the final judgment in the previous case.

The presiding judge noted that refusing to issue the license would subject the Mayor to contempt of court, and revoking or canceling the license would pose an even greater risk of contempt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not there was a violation of Circular No. 28-91 and Revised Circular No. 1-88, which would warrant the dismissal of the petition.

  2. Whether or not the decision in Civil Case No. 88-45660 is null and void for want of jurisdiction.

  3. Whether or not the cancellation of Ordinance No. 7065 by President Marcos could be raised as a special defense in Civil Case No. 88-54660.

  4. Whether the City of Manila should have pursued its appeal in the appellate courts instead of filing a motion to compel the City Mayor to issue the permit or license.

  5. Whether the execution of the judgment by mere motion is irregular.

  6. Whether the petition was validly brought under Rule 42, Section 1 in relation to R.A. No. 5440 to declare null and void the Decision and Orders of the trial court.

  7. Whether there was lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge.

RULING:

  1. The petitioners did not violate Circular No. 28-91 and Revised Circular No. 1-88 as there was no violation of forum shopping and the affidavit sufficiently stated the material dates necessary for the Court to determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition.

  2. The decision in Civil Case No. 88-45660 is not null and void for want of jurisdiction. Even if the decision was erroneous, it does not divest the court of its jurisdiction to try the case. Since the Regional Trial Court has the competence to hear and decide the civil case, the principle of estoppel operates to bar the petitioners from raising the question of jurisdiction for the first time in the instant case.

  3. The cancellation of Ordinance No. 7065 by President Marcos could have been raised as a special defense in Civil Case No. 88-54660 but was not. The Revised Rules of Court prohibit the piecemeal presentation of issues and bar subsequent litigation between the same parties on matters that could have been raised in a previous case.

  4. Yes, the City of Manila should have pursued its appeal in the appellate courts. The trial court ruled that the City of Manila and the Mayor could no longer claim that the ordinance had been cancelled by President Marcos because they failed to raise this issue in a previous case. Therefore, the City of Manila should have appealed the dismissal of that previous case in the appellate courts.

  5. No, the execution of the judgment by mere motion is not irregular. The five-year period for enforcing a judgment by motion is counted from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. In this case, the motion to compel the City Mayor to issue the permit or license was filed within the five-year period from the date the judgment became final and executory.

  6. The petition was brought under the wrong rule and law and should have been filed under Rule 65. Rule 42 and R.A. No. 5440 pertain to appeals to the Supreme Court from the decisions of the trial court. Since the orders being questioned were issued after the trial court's decision had become final and executory, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

  7. There was no showing of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge. Therefore, the petition for certiorari is dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the exercise thereof. The authority to decide a case at all and not the decision rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction. The fact that the decision is erroneous does not divest the court that rendered it of its jurisdiction conferred by law to try the case.

  • Estoppel operates to bar a party from raising the question of jurisdiction for the first time if the court has competence to hear and decide the case.

  • The Revised Rules of Court frowns upon the piecemeal presentation of issues and prevents subsequent litigation between the same parties on matters that could have been raised in a previous case.

  • Unilateral cancellation of a franchise without notice, hearing, and justifiable cause is intolerable in any system where the Rule of Law prevails.

  • The withdrawal of an appeal does not operate as if no appeal was taken at all.

  • The phrase "the case shall stand there as if no appeal has been taken" refers to the manner of how the judgment may be enforced, not to the five-year period for enforcing a judgment by motion.

  • Gambling is not illegal per se and is left to the discretion of Congress to regulate. The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue.

  • Matters concerning the operation of a jai-alai fronton and the benefits to be derived from it are issues that should be resolved by the legislative and executive departments, not the judiciary.

  • Equity and fair play should be considered in resolving petitions, especially when there are substantial investments made and government permits issued.

  • Different rules and laws govern the appropriate legal remedies to be availed of depending on the stage and nature of the case.

  • A petition for certiorari can only be granted when there is a showing of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.