LIM VS.

PACQUING
295
Date September 1, 1994. GR Number 115044 Ponente
QUIASON, J|||

Article 3, Section 1, Subsection 2 BRIAN KELVIN VIDALLON PINEDA

Petitioners: ALFREDO LIM Respondents: HON. FELIPE PACQUING

Doctrine: The time-honored doctrine is that all laws (PD No. 771 included) are presumed
valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by this Court.

Facts:
Sec 3 of the Presidential Decree No. 771 expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits
to operate all forms of gambling facilities (including the jai-alai) issued by local governments.

Judge Pacquing had earlier issued order directing Manila mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue the
permit/license to operate the jai-alai in favor of Associated Development Corporation (ADC).

Also, he issued an order directing mayor Lim to explain why he should not be cited for
contempt for non-compliance with the order dated 28 March 1994.

Lastly, he issued an order reiterating the previous order directing Mayor Lim to immediately
issue the permit/license to Associated Development Corporation (ADC).

Issue/s: Ruling:
1. Whether or not PD 771 is constitutional. 1. Yes
The time-honored doctrine is that all laws (PD No. 771 included) are presumed valid and
constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by this Court. Not only this; Article XVIII Section
3 of the Constitution states:
Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and
other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed or revoked.
There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed,
altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the executive still
exercised legislative powers).

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

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

Consequently, in the light of the foregoing expostulation, we conclude that the republic (in
contra distinction to the City of Manila) may be allowed to intervene in G.R. No. 115044. The
Republic is intervening in G.R. No. 115044 in the exercise, not of its business or proprietary
functions, but in the exercise of its governmental functions to protect public morals and
promote the general welfare.