Class 1AA (AY 11-12) StatCon Case Digest

Resubal at Regis: Mga Alagad ng Kabutihan

Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc. 234 SCRA 255, G.R. No. 11097, July 20, 1994 J. Cruz FACTS: 1. In 1992, flush with its tremendous success in several cities, PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan De Oro (CDO for brevity). To this end, it leased a portion of its operation of a building to Pryce Properties Corporation (Pryce) and prepared said premises for the inauguration of the casino during the Christmas season. 2. In view of opposition coming from different civic organizations, as shown by massive protests and demonstrations, the Sangguniang Panglunsod of CDO enacted Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 to prevent the operation of casino in the said province.

3. Pryce, joined by PAGCOR acting as intervenor and supplemental petitioner, assailed the said
ordinances before the Court of Appeals (CA). On March 23, 1993, CA declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their enforcement.

4. On July 13, 1993, CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by CDO and its mayor.
5. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was filed by the petitioners averring that the CA erred in its decision to invalidate the aforementioned ordinances. ISSUE: Whether or not the gambling and other prohibited games of chance mentioned in Sec. 4581, par.(a), sub-par(1)-(v) of R.A. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (henceforth LGC) could only mean illegal gambling? RELATED STATUTE/S: LGC Section 458 Powers , Duties, Functions an Compensation. (a) The Sangguniang Panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the coporate powers of the city as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall: (1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city government, and in this connection, shall: Xxx (v) Enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose appropriate penalties for habitual drunkenness in public places, vagrancy, mendicancy, prostitution, establishment and maintenance of hoses of ill repute, gambling and other prohibited games of chance, fraudulent devices and ways to obtain money or property, drug addiction, maintenance of drug dens, drug pushing, juvenile delinquency, the printing, distribution or exhibition of obscene or
1

Said provision of LGC, petitioner argues, enables the Sangguniang Panlungsod to prohibit the operation of casinos, because they involve games of chance, which are detrimental to the people. Hence, the petitioner avers that should the court construct the said phrase to encompass all forms of gambling, may it be legal or illegal, the petitioner may invoke this provision to prohibit PAGCOR from operating casinos in their area.

Class 1AA (AY 11-12) StatCon Case Digest

Resubal at Regis: Mga Alagad ng Kabutihan

pornographic materials or publications, and such other activities inimical to the welfare and morals of the inhabitants of the city ARGUMENTS/INTERPRETATIONS: A. Petitioners Argument/Interpretation: The petitioners argued that when the LGC expressly authorized local government units to prevent and suppress gambling and other prohibited games of chance, it meant all forms of gambling without distinction. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemos (where the law does not distinguish, neither ought we to distinguish.) Otherwise, it would have expressly excluded casinos and other forms of gambling authorized by special law from the scope of their power, as it could have easily done. The fact that it did not do so simply means that the local government units are permitted to prohibit all kinds of gambling within their territories, including the operation of casinos. B. Respondents Argument/Interpretation: Court of Appeals the phrase gambling and other prohibited games of chance are limited to gambling which are prohibited or illegal. (implied from the petition in this case) HELD: Petition was denied and the decision of CA invalidating the aforementioned ordinances was affirmed. RATIO: Obviously excluded in the provision contested are the games of chance which are not prohibited but are in fact permitted by law. The petitioners erred in claiming that the LGC could have excluded such games of chance yet it did not, when as a matter of fact it does. By the virtue of the rule of noscitur a sociis wherein a word or phrase is interpreted in relation to, or given the same meaning of, words which it is associated. The court inferred from the debated provision that the word gambling was used in association with other prohibited games of chance, hence the said word should be read as referring to only illegal gambling which, like the other prohibited games of chance must be prevented or suppressed. RULES/DOCTRINES APPLIED: Noscitur a sociis where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is found or with which it is associated.