Mayor Pablo Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp.

G.R. No. 111097

July 20, 1994
J. Cruz

FACTS:

In 1992, PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To do this, they
leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation. Unfortunately, the
residents of CDO denounced this project.

To prevent the opening of the Casino, the Sangguniang Panlunsod of CDO enacted Ordinance
No. 3355, ​An Ordinance Prohibiting the Issuance of Business Permit and Cancelling Existing
Business Permit to Any Establishment for the Using and Allowing to be Used Its Premises or
Portion Thereof for the Operation of a Casino​, and Ordinance No. 3375-93, ​An Ordinance
Prohibiting the Operation of Casino and Providing Penalty for Violation Thereof​.

Pryce assailed the ordinances with the Court of Appeals. PAGCOR joined as intervenor and
supplemental petitioner. Eventually, the CA declared the ordinances invalid. Cagayan de Oro
and the Mayor filed an MR, which was denied. Hence this Petition for Review.

Argument of Petitioners - Cagayan de Oro & Mayor:

- The ordinances were enacted in the exercise of their police power under the General
Welfare Clause (Sec. 16 and Sec. 458, LGC). Provisions authorize the LGU to regulate
businesses within their territory. Hence, they can prohibit the operation of casinos,
gambling and games of chance, which is detrimental to the people. This interpretation is
in consonance with the policy if Local Autonomy.
- The Ordinances did not repeal the PAGCOR Charter, which is a law. Rather, the Local
Government Code modified the PAGCOR Charter, in that PAGCOR cannot operate
casinos anymore. There was modification since the LGC adopted after P.D. 1869, and
the prior law does not conform to the philosophy and provisions of the LGC, as per
paragraph (f) of LGC’s repealing clause.
- In case of doubt as to the repeal of P.D. 1869 by LGC, the doubt must be resolved in
favor of the petitioners, in line with the policy of the Code calling for a liberal
interpretation in favor of LGUs (Sec 5, LGC)

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not Ordinance No. 3355 & Ordinance No. 3375- 93 enacted by the
Sangguniang Panlunsod of Cagayan de Oro City is valid.
2. Whether or not there was an implied repeal of the PAGCOR Charter by virtue of
the Local Government Code.
HELD:

The Ordinances are INVALID.

RATIO:

1. (Construction) Sec. 458, LGC prohibits “gambling and other prohibited games of
chance”. Provision excludes only games of chance that are NOT prohibited. We should
construe “gambling” as referring only to ILLEGAL gambling since the word “gambling”
was associated with “other prohibited games of chance”. ITC, gambling conducted under
the operations of PAGCOR are NOT prohibited as it is expressly allowed by law, its
charter.
2. (Implied Repeal) P.D. 1869 was not impliedly repealed by the Local Government Code,
because:
a. If we follow the logic of petitioner’s argument (modification of the charter), that
would be tantamount to repeal since PAGCOR would be removed of all power to
centralize and regulate casinos, as mandated by there would be nothing to
regulate since the prohibition against gambling and games of chance would be
mandatory on all LGUs.
b. The LGC’s repealing clause (Sec. 532) mentions all the other laws that it intends
to repeal/is inconsistent with the LGC. P.D. 1869 was not included in the express
listing.
c. Implied repeals are not lightly presumed in the absence of a clear and
unmistakable showing of such intention.
i. In ​Lichauco & Co. v. Apostol​:
“The cases relating to the subject of repeal by implication all proceed on
the assumption that if the act of later date clearly reveals an intention on
the part of the lawmaking power to abrogate the prior law, this intention
must be given effect; but there must always be a sufficient revelation of
this intention, and it has become an unbending rule of statutory
construction that the intention to repeal a former law will not be imputed to
the Legislature when it appears that the two statutes, or provisions, with
reference to which the question arises bear to each other the relation of
general to special.”
d. PAGCOR was mentioned as the source of funding in two later enactments of
Congress. This shows that the PAGCOR charter has not been repealed by the
LGC.
e. Policy: courts must exert every effort to reconcile allegedly contending statutes,
instead of pitting statutes against each other

Digest by:
Trixee Ibañez