FIRST DIVISION

ROLANDO N. CANET, Petitioner,

vs.
MAYOR JULIETA A. DECENA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 155344 January 20, 2004

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Facts:

 On July 27, 1998, SB of Bula, Camarines Sur, passed a Resolution authorizing Mr.
Canet to establish, operate and maintain a cockpit.

 Subsequently, the SB passed an Ordinance regulating the operation of cockpits

and other related game-fowl activities in the Municipality of Bula, Camarines Sur.

 When transmitted to Mayor Decena, it was noted that the Ordinance does not
contain rules and regulations on cockfighting and other related game fowl
activities and a separability clause. The Ordinance was returned to
the Sangguniang Bayan.

 Meanwhile, Mr. Canet, relying on the Resolution of the SB, filed an application
for a mayor’s permit to operate, establish and maintain a cockpit.

 Mayor Decena denied the application on the ground that under the LGC of 1991,
the authority to give licenses for the establishment, operation and maintenance of
cockpits as well as the regulation of cockfighting and commercial breeding of
gamecocks is vested in the SB. Therefore, she cannot issue the said permit
inasmuch as there was no ordinance passed by the SB authorizing the same.

 RTC: On July 26, 1999, Mr. Canet filed a complaint for Mandamus and Damages
with Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. Mayor Decena moved for
the dismissal of the complaint but was denied by the court.

 The trial court issued a Resolution on January 27, 2000 and the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction was subsequently issued on February 1, 2000.
  CA: Mayor Decena filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA.
On April 3, 2000, the CA issued a TRO directing petitioner and the presiding
judge to temporarily cease and desist from enforcing the writ of PMI.

 On June 3, 2002, CA granted the petition and the questioned January 27, 2000
Resolution and the writ of PMI were annulled and set aside. Mr. Canet filed a
Motion for Reconsideration but was denied for lack of merit.

Issue:

 W/N respondent, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor, can be compelled to issue

the necessary business permit to petitioner without a municipal ordinance which
would empower her to do so.

Held:

 No. respondent Mayor is not compelled to issue such business permit because
there is no ordinance passed by the SB authorizing the grant of a mayor’s permit
to operate and maintain a cockfighting arena.

 Hence, there being in effect no ordinance allowing the operation of a cockpit, the
Resolution authorizing petitioner to establish, operate and maintain a cockpit in
Bula, Camarines Sur cannot be implemented.

 The dictum that where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain
matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other
matters. As expressed in the maxim expressium facit cessare tacitum – what is
expressed puts an end to what is implied. The rule proceeds from the premise that
the legislative body would not have made specific enumerations in a statute, if it
had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly
mentioned.

 Petition was DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the CA was AFFIRMED.