Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255 [Case Digest]

 

Magtajas v. Pryce Properties,

234 SCRA 255

Facts:

            PAGCOR announced the opening of a casino in CDO.  PAGCOR leased portion of building belonging to Pryce Properties (Respondents).  Sangguniang Panlungsod of CDO enacted an Ordinance [No. 3353] prohibiting the issuance of business permit and cancelling existing business permit to any establishment for the using and allowing to be used its permises or portion thereof for the operation of Casino.

           

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the Ordinance No. 3353 enacted by Sangguniang Panlungsod of CDO is void.

 

Held:

            Yes.

 

Ratio:

            For municipal ordinances to be valid, they:

[a] must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;

[b] must not be unfair or oppressive;

[c] must not be partial or discriminatory;

[d] must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade;

[e] must not be unreasonable; and

[f] must be general in application and consistent with public policy

 

            Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it was not 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 casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all their praiseworthy motives, these ordinances are contrary to P.D. 1869 and the public policy announced therein and are therefore ultra vires and void.