1/14/2020 G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.

ET AL. : AUGUST 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > August 2001 Decisions > G.R. No. 129093 August 30,
2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129093. August 30, 2001.]

HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR., SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF LAGUNA, and HON. CALIXTO
CATAQUIZ, Petitioners, v. HON. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO and TONY CALVENTO, Respondents.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

For our resolution is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision 1 dated
February 10, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93, enjoining petitioners
from implementing or enforcing Kapasiyahan Bilang 508, Taon 1995, of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Laguna and its subsequent Order 2 dated April 21, 1997 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. chanrob1es

virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On December 29, 1995, respondent Tony Calvento was appointed agent by the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to install Terminal OM 20 for the operation of lotto. He asked Mayor Calixto
Cataquiz, Mayor of San Pedro, Laguna, for a mayor’s permit to open the lotto outlet. This was denied by
Mayor Cataquiz in a letter dated February 19, 1996. The ground for said denial was an ordinance passed
by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 which was issued on
September 18, 1995. The ordinance reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

DebtKollect Company, Inc. ISANG KAPASIYAHAN TINUTUTULAN ANG MGA "ILLEGAL GAMBLING" LALO NA ANG LOTTO SA
LALAWIGAN NG LAGUNA

SAPAGKA’T, ang sugal dito sa lalawigan ng Laguna ay talamak na;

SAPAGKA’T, ang sugal ay nagdudulot ng masasamang impluwensiya lalo’t higit sa mga kabataan;

KUNG KAYA’T DAHIL DITO, at sa mungkahi nina Kgg. Kgd. Juan M. Unico at Kgg. Kgd. Gat-Ala A. Alatiit,
pinangalawahan ni Kgg. Kgd. Meliton C. Larano at buong pagkakaisang sinangayunan ng lahat ng dumalo
sa pulong;

IPINASIYA, na tutulan gaya ng dito ay mahigpit na TINUTUTULAN ang ano mang uri ng sugal dito sa
lalawigan ng Laguna lalo’t higit ang Lotto;

IPINASIYA PA RIN na hilingin tulad ng dito ay hinihiling sa Panlalawigang pinuno ng Philippine National
Police (PNP) Col. [illegible] na mahigpit na pag-ibayuhin ang pagsugpo sa lahat ng uri ng illegal na sugal
sa buong lalawigan ng Laguna lalo na ang "Jueteng." 3

As a result of this resolution of denial, respondent Calvento filed a complaint for declaratory relief with
prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. In the said complaint, respondent
Calvento asked the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro Laguna, Branch 93, for the following reliefs: (1) a
ChanRobles Intellectual Property preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, ordering the defendants to refrain from
Division implementing or enforcing Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995; (2) an order requiring Hon. Municipal Mayor
Calixto R Cataquiz to issue a business permit for the operation of a lotto outlet; and (3) an order

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001augustdecisions.php?id=871 1/6
1/14/2020 G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL. : AUGUST 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
August-2001 Jurisprudence                  OFFICES, PRIOR CONSULTATION AND APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS CONCERNED AND
G.R. No. 126899 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. FELICITO T. BARBOSA
G.R. No. 128137 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. MARIO HAMTO
G.R. No. 131203 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CARIÑO
G.R. No. 137473 August 2, 2001 - ESTELITO V.
REMOLONA v. CSC
G.R. Nos. 141702-03 August 2, 2001 - CATHAY
PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80 August 8, 2001 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO P. CABILTO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 131817 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. DANTE L. DOMINGO
G.R. Nos. 133791-94 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO SUPNAD
G.R. No. 135065 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. BENNY CABANGCALA, ET AL.
Adm. Case No. 4982 August 9, 2001 - KATRINA
JOAQUIN CARIÑO v. ARTURO DE LOS REYES
A.M. No. 01-2-47-RTC August 9, 2001 - RE: JUDGE
GUILLERMO L. LOJA,
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 August 9, 2001 - CESINA
EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.
Adm. Matter No. P-01-1495 August 9, 2001 -
ESMERALDO D. VISITACION v. GREDAM P. EDIZA
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506 August 9, 2001 - JOSEFINA
MERONTOS Vda. de SAYSON v. OSCAR E. ZERNA
A.M. No. P-01-1489 August 9, 2001 - CATALINO
BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. AMELITA O. MENDOZA
G.R. No. 110740 August 9, 2001 - NDC-GUTHRIE
PLANTATIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 112485 August 9, 2001 - EMILIA
MANZANO v. MIGUEL PEREZ SR., ET AL.
G.R. No. 129209 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JESEMIEL MOSQUERRA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 134565 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL v. LUDIVINO MIANA, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 138472-73 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. NOEL PADILLA
G.R. No. 138964 August 9, 2001 - VICENTE
RELLOSA, ET AL. v. GONZALO PELLOSIS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 139411 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. AGAPITO TORALBA
G.R. No. 139532 August 9, 2001 - REGAL FILMS v.
GABRIEL CONCEPCION
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001augustdecisions.php?id=871
annulling or declaring as invalid Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995.
On February 10, 1997, the respondent judge, Francisco Dizon Paño, promulgated his decision enjoining
the petitioners from implementing or enforcing resolution or Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995. The
dispositive portion of said decision reads: chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants, their agents and representatives are hereby enjoined
from implementing or enforcing resolution or kapasiyahan blg. 508, T. 1995 of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan ng Laguna prohibiting the operation of the lotto in the province of Laguna.
SO ORDERED. 4
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was subsequently denied in an Order dated April 21,
1997, which reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by defendants Jose D. Lina, Jr. and the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Laguna, thru counsel, with the opposition filed by plaintiff’s counsel and the comment
thereto filed by counsel for the defendants which were duly noted, the Court hereby denies the motion
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 5
On May 23, 1997, petitioners filed this petition alleging that the following errors were committed by the
respondent trial court: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENJOINING THE PETITIONERS FROM IMPLEMENTING KAPASIYAHAN BLG.
508, T. 1995 OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF LAGUNA PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF THE
LOTTO IN THE PROVINCE OF LAGUNA.
II
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENT POSITED BY THE PETITIONERS THAT BEFORE
ANY GOVERNMENT PROJECT OR PROGRAM MAY BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE NATIONAL AGENCIES OR
OTHER CONCERNED SECTORS IS REQUIRED.
Petitioners contend that the assailed resolution is a valid policy declaration of the Provincial Government
of Laguna of its vehement objection to the operation of lotto and all forms of gambling. It is likewise a
valid exercise of the provincial government’s police power under the General Welfare Clause of Republic
Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. 6 They also maintain that
respondent’s lotto operation is illegal because no prior consultations and approval by the local
government were sought before it was implemented contrary to the express provisions of Sections 2 (c)
and 27 of R.A. 7160. 7 cralaw : red
For his part, respondent Calvento argues that the questioned resolution is, in effect, a curtailment of the
power of the state since in this case the national legislature itself had already declared lotto as legal and
permitted its operations around the country. 8 As for the allegation that no prior consultations and
approval were sought from the sangguniang panlalawigan of Laguna, respondent Calvento contends this
is not mandatory since such a requirement is merely stated as a declaration of policy and not a self-
executing provision of the Local Government Code of 1991. 9 He also states that his operation of the
lotto system is legal because of the authority given to him by the PCSO, which in turn had been granted
a franchise to operate the lotto by Congress. 10
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the State, contends that the Provincial Government of
Laguna has no power to prohibit a form of gambling which has been authorized by the national
government. 11 He argues that this is based on the principle that ordinances should not contravene
statutes as municipal governments are merely agents of the national government. The local councils
exercise only delegated legislative powers which have been conferred on them by Congress. This being
the case, these councils, as delegates, cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than
those of the latter. The OSG also adds that the question of whether gambling should be permitted is for
Congress to determine, taking into account national and local interests. Since Congress has allowed the
PCSO to operate lotteries which PCSO seeks to conduct in Laguna, pursuant to its legislative grant of
authority, the province’s Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot nullify the exercise of said authority by
preventing something already allowed by Congress.
The issues to be resolved now are the following: (1) whether Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna and the denial of a mayor’s permit based thereon are valid; and (2)
whether prior consultations and approval by the concerned Sanggunian are needed before a lotto system
can be operated in a given local government unit.
The entire controversy stemmed from the refusal of Mayor Cataquiz to issue a mayor’s permit for the
operation of a lotto outlet in favor of private Respondent. According to the mayor, he based his decision
on an existing ordinance prohibiting the operation of lotto in the province of Laguna. The ordinance,
however, merely states the "objection" of the council to the said game. It is but a mere policy statement
on the part of the local council, which is not self-executing. Nor could it serve as a valid ground to
prohibit the operation of the lotto system in the province of Laguna. Even petitioners admit as much
when they stated in their petition that: chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
5.7. The terms of the Resolution and the validity thereof are express and clear. The Resolution is a policy
declaration of the Provincial Government of Laguna of its vehement opposition and/or objection to the
operation of and/or all forms of gambling including the Lotto operation in the Province of Laguna. 12
As a policy statement expressing the local government’s objection to the lotto, such resolution is valid.
This is part of the local government’s autonomy to air its views which may be contrary to that of the
national government’s. However, this freedom to exercise contrary views does not mean that local
governments may actually enact ordinances that go against laws duly enacted by Congress. Given this
premise, the assailed resolution in this case could not and should not be interpreted as a measure or
ordinance prohibiting the operation of lotto.
The game of lotto is a game of chance duly authorized by the national government through an Act of
Congress. Republic Act 1169, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 42, is the law which grants a
franchise to the PCSO and allows it to operate the lotteries. The pertinent provision reads:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
SECTION 1. The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. — The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office,
hereinafter designated the Office, shall be the principal government agency for raising and providing for
funds for health programs, medical assistance and services and charities of national character, and as
such shall have the general powers conferred in section thirteen of Act Numbered One thousand four
hundred fifty-nine, as amended, and shall have the authority: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
2/6
1/14/2020 G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL. : AUGUST 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
G.R. No. 139665 August 9, 2001 - MA. VILMA S.
LABAD v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL., ET
AL.
G.R. No. 140347 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROLANDO OLITA
G.R. No. 142546 August 9, 2001 - ANASTACIO
FABELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 142838 August 9, 2001 - ABELARDO B.
LICAROS v. ANTONIO P. GATMAITAN
G.R. No. 143881 August 9, 2001 - DANILO
EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO SISTOZA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 143949 August 9, 2001 - ATCI OVERSEAS
CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 144089 August 9, 2001 - CONCORDE
HOTEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126480 August 10, 2001 - MARIA TIN v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. 129162 August 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. WILLY FIGURACION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130998 August 10, 2001 - MARUBENI
CORP. ET AL. v. FELIX LIRAG
G.R. Nos. 137934 & 137936 August 10, 2001 -
BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL.
v. BENJAMIN M. BITANGA. ET AL.
G.R. No. 143673 August 10, 2001 - CONRADO
TUAZON, ET AL. v. ERNESTO GARILAO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 144708 August 10, 2001 - RAFAEL
ALBANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 146724 August 10, 2001 - GIL TAROJA
VILLOTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 136266 August 13, 2001 - EUTIQUIO A.
PELIGRINO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1612 August 14, 2001 - MARCO
FRANCISCO SEVILLEJA v. ANTONIO N. LAGGUI
A.M. No. P-00-1438 August 14, 2001 - JUNN F.
FLORES v. ROGER S. CONANAN
G.R. No. 135482 August 14, 2001 - ORLANDO
SALVADOR v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 136192 August 14, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL
AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST
LOANS v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 141617 August 14, 2001 - ADALIA B.
FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. RITA C. MEJIA
G.R. No. 142276 August 14, 2001 - FLORENTINO
GO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 142662 August 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JERRY FERRER
A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: ATTY.
DAVID BRIONES.
A.M. RTJ No. 89-403 August 15, 2001 - MOLINTO
D. PAGAYAO v. FAUSTO H. IMBING
A.M. No. 96-9-332-RTC August 15, 2001 -
DIRECTOR, PNP NARCOTICS COMMAND v. JAIME N.
SALAZAR
A.M. No. P-99-1311 August 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ALBERTO V. GARONG
G.R. Nos. 113822-23 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RAUL L. PABLO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 118492 August 15, 2001 - GREGORIO H.
REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 120468 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. LOPE B. LIWANAG, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128177 August 15, 2001 - ROMAN
SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129295 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EDWIN MORIAL, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129598 August 15, 2001 - PNB MADECOR
v. GERARDO C. UY
G.R. No. 130360 August 15, 2001 - WILSON ONG
CHING KIAN CHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 136834 August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON,
ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 137271 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL v. REYNALDO CORRE JR., ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001augustdecisions.php?id=871
A. To hold and conduct charity sweepstakes races, lotteries, and other similar activities, in such
frequency and manner, as shall be determined, and subject to such rules and regulations as shall be
promulgated by the Board of Directors.
This statute remains valid today. While lotto is clearly a game of chance, the national government deems
it wise and proper to permit it. Hence, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna, a local government unit,
cannot issue a resolution or an ordinance that would seek to prohibit permits. Stated otherwise, what the
national legislature expressly allows by law, such as lotto, a provincial board may not disallow by
ordinance or resolution.
In our system of government, the power of local government units to legislate and enact ordinances and
resolutions is merely a delegated power coming from Congress. As held in Tatel v. Virac, 13 ordinances
should not contravene an existing statute enacted by Congress. The reasons for this is obvious, as
elucidated in Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. 14 chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only
delegated legislative powers conferred upon them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The
delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is a
heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have
derived their power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute.
Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature.
It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy.
As it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right,
the legislature might, by a single act, and if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a
wrong, sweep from existence all of the municipal corporations in the state, and the corporation could not
prevent it. We know of no limitation on the right so far as the corporation themselves are concerned.
They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature (citing Clinton v. Ceder Rapids, etc.
Railroad Co., 24 Iowa 455).
Nothing in the present constitutional provision enhancing local autonomy dictates a different conclusion.
The basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been
enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. Without
meaning to detract from that policy, we here confirm that Congress retains control of the local
government units although in significantly reduced degree now than under our previous Constitutions.
The power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power to grant still includes the power to
withhold or recall. True, there are certain notable innovations in the Constitution, like the direct
conferment on the local government units of the power to tax (citing Art. X, Sec. 5, Constitution), which
cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however, the national legislature is still the
principal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it. 15
Ours is still a unitary form of government, not a federal state. Being so, any form of autonomy granted to
local governments will necessarily be limited and confined within the extent allowed by the central
authority. Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means
"decentralization." It does not make local governments sovereign within the state or an "imperium in
imperio." 16chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
To conclude our resolution of the first issue, respondent mayor of San Pedro, cannot avail of Kapasiyahan
Bilang 508, Taon 1995, of the Provincial Board of Laguna as justification to prohibit lotto in his
municipality. For said resolution is nothing but an expression of the local legislative unit concerned. The
Board’s enactment, like spring water, could not rise above its source of power, the national legislature.
As for the second issue, we hold that petitioners erred in declaring that Sections 2 (c) and 27 of Republic
Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, apply mandatorily in the setting up of
lotto outlets around the country. These provisions state: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. — . . .
(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people’s organizations, and
other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their
respective jurisdictions.
SECTION 27. Prior Consultations Required. — No project or program shall be implemented by
government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Section 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied
with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained; Provided, that occupants in areas
where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless, appropriate relocation sites have
been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
From a careful reading of said provisions, we find that these apply only to national programs and/or
projects which are to be implemented in a particular local community. Lotto is neither a program nor a
project of the national government, but of a charitable institution, the PCSO. Though sanctioned by the
national government, it is far fetched to say that lotto falls within the contemplation of Sections 2 (c) and
27 of the Local Government Code.
Section 27 of the Code should be read in conjunction with Section 26 thereof. 17 Section 26 reads:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. It shall be
the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled corporation authorizing or involved
in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change,
depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover, and extinction of
animal or plant species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and
other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon
the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that
will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects and
programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those that: (1) may
cause pollution; (2) may bring about climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of non-renewable
resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may eradicate certain
animal or plant species from the face of the planet; and (6) other projects or programs that may call for
the eviction of a particular group of people residing in the locality where these will be implemented.
Obviously, none of these effects will be produced by the introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna.
Moreover, the argument regarding lack of consultation raised by petitioners is clearly an afterthought on
their part. There is no indication in the letter of Mayor Cataquiz that this was one of the reasons for his
refusal to issue a permit. That refusal was predicated solely but erroneously on the provisions of
Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, Taon 1995, of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna.
In sum, we find no reversible error in the RTC decision enjoining Mayor Cataquiz from enforcing or
implementing the Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995, of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna. That
resolution expresses merely a policy statement of the Laguna provincial board. It possesses no binding
3/6
1/14/2020 G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL. : AUGUST 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
G.R. No. 137509 August 15, 2001 - PEVET ADALID legal force nor requires any act of implementation. It provides no sufficient legal basis for respondent
FELIZARDO, ET AL v. SIEGFREDO FERNANDEZ mayor’s refusal to issue the permit sought by private respondent in connection with a legitimate business
activity authorized by a law passed by Congress.
G.R. Nos. 137969-71 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL v. RAFAEL SALALIMA
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro,
Laguna enjoining the petitioners from implementing or enforcing Resolution or Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T.
G.R. No. 139337 August 15, 2001 - MA. CARMINIA
C. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
1995, of the Provincial Board of Laguna is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

G.R. No. 139420 August 15, 2001 - ROBERTO R. SO ORDERED.

SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 August 15, 2001 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ET AL.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001 - LILIBETH
SUNGA-CHAN, ET AL v. LAMBERTO T. CHUA

G.R. No. 144813 August 15, 2001 - GOLD LINE 1. Rollo, pp. 18-20.
TRANSIT v. LUISA RAMOS
2. Id. at 21.
G.R. No. 147270 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: PETE C.
LAGRAN 3. Records, pp. 8-8-A.

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1565 August 16, 2001 - FEDERICO 4. Rollo, p. 20.

S. BERNARDO v. PATERNO G. TIAMSON
5. Id. at 21.
G.R. No. 119900 August 16, 2001 - SUNNY
MOTORS SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
6. Id. at 13.
G.R. No. 121897 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. GIL TEMPLA, ET AL. 7. Section 2. Declaration of Policy. — . . .

G.R. No. 126200 August 16, 2001 - DEV’T. BANK OF
THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126926 August 16, 2001 - RAMON P.
ARON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 127543 August 16, 2001
INTERNATIONAL PIPES, ET AL. v. F. F. CRUZ & CO.
G.R. No. 132155 August 16, 2001 - ARAS-ASAN
TIMBER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, ET AL.
(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to
conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental
and people’s organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any
project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.
Section 27. Prior Consultations Required. — No project or program shall be implemented
- by government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Section 2 (c) and 26
hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained;
Provided, that occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be
evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.

G.R. No. 134292 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE 8. Rollo, p. 25.
PHIL. v. FRANCO MORALES
9. Id. at. 27.
G.R. No. 136365 August 16, 2001 - ENRIQUE R.
CAMACHO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NAT’L. BANK, ET AL. 10. Id. at 28.

G.R. No. 136780 August 16, 2001 - JEANETTE D. 11. Id. at 58-61.
MOLINO v. SECURITY DINERS INTERNATIONAL
CORP.
12. Id. at 13.
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597 August 20, 2001 - WILSON
ANDRES v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN 13. 207 SCRA 157, 161 (1992).

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 August 20, 2001 - MIGUEL 14. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., 234 SCRA 255, 272-273 (1994).
ARGEL v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA
15. Id. at 273.
G.R. No. 110055 August 20, 2001 - ASUNCION SAN
JUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 16. Basco v. Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 197 SCRA 52, 65 (1991).
G.R. No. 111685 August 20, 2001 - DAVAO LIGHT & 17. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., The Local Government Code of 1991, p. 124.
POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 131866 August 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. CARLOS DOCTOLERO

G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001 - GUALBERTO

CASTRO v. RICARDO GLORIA
Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 132684 August 20, 2001 - HERNANI N.

FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. 134718 August 20, 2001 - ROMANA
INGJUGTIRO v. LEON V. CASALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 142401 August 20, 2001 - ANDREW TAN v. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 137299 August 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NANAS
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 138869 August 21, 2001 - DAVID SO v. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 140519 August 21, 2001 - PHIL. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. THELMA RUPA
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 130817 August 22, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST
LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
G.R. No. 138403 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROLLY C. ABULENCIA 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. Nos. 141712-13 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO M. BOHOL 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
G.R. No. 143867 August 22, 2001 - PLDT v. CITY
OF DAVAO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128628 August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO

SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 133749 August 23, 2001 - HERNANDO R. Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
PEÑALOSA v. SEVERINO C. SANTOS

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001augustdecisions.php?id=871 4/6
1/14/2020 G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL. : AUGUST 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
G.R. No. 133789 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EDUARDO P. CHUA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 136506 August 23, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF

THE PHIL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 137199-230 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE J. ALAY-AY

G.R. No. 137842 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. DANILO H. CATUBIG

G.R. No. 138588 August 23, 2001 - FAR EAST BANK

& TRUST COMPANY v. DIAZ REALTY INC.

G.R. No. 138022 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. PEDRO A. FRANCISCO

G.R. No. 144142 August 23, 2001 - YOLANDA

AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 August 24, 2001 -

RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 131609 August 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PUERTA

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1571 August 28, 2001 - JESUS

GUILLAS v. RENATO D. MUÑEZ

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1645 August 28, 2001 -

VICTORINO S. SIANGHIO, JR. v. BIENVENIDO L.
REYES

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626 August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO

D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

G.R. Nos. 100633 & 101550 August 28, 2001 -

SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 114118 August 28, 2001 - SIMEON

BORLADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 125728 August 28, 2001 - MARIA

ALVAREZ VDA. DE DELGADO, ET AL v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129960 August 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. PEDRO CARIÑO

G.R. No. 131175 August 28, 2001 - JOVITO

VALENZUELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 133056 August 28, 2001 - FACUNDO T.

BAUTISTA v. PUYAT VINYL PRODUCTS

G.R. No. 140812 August 28, 2001 - CANDIDO

ALFARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 143256 August 28, 2001 - RODOLFO

FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 144653 August 28, 2001 - BANK OF THE

PHIL. ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE

A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC August 30, 2001 -

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TERESITA
Q. ORBIGO-MARCELO

G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ROGER P. TULIN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 119811 August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S.

TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 123980 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. MANUEL CALIMLIM

G.R. No. 127905 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. DANILO REMUDO

G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA,

ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 133113 August 30, 2001 - EDGAR H.

ARREZA v. MONTANO M. DIAZ

G.R. No. 136280 August 30, 2001 - ORCHARD

REALTY and DEV’T CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 139083 August 30, 2001 - FLORENCIA

PARIS v. DIONISIO A. ALFECHE

G.R. No. 140229 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. HENRY BALMOJA

G.R. No. 140995 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. DANILO M. REGALA

G.R. No. 141128 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ORPIANO DELOS SANTOS

G.R. No. 141283 August 30, 2001 - SEGOVIA

DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. J.L. DUMATOL REALTY

G.R. No. 144442 August 30, 2001 - JESUS

SALVATIERRA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001augustdecisions.php?id=871 5/6
1/14/2020 G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL. : AUGUST 2001 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
A. M. No. 00-7-299-RTC August 31, 2001 -
REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO.
R-1692 RTC BR. 45

A.M. No. 00-8-03-SB August 31, 2001 - RE:

UNNUMBERED RESOLUTION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN RE ACQUISITION OF THREE [3]
MOTOR VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL USE OF JUSTICES

A.M. No. P-99-1316 August 31, 2001 - KENNETH S.

NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

G.R. Nos. 132548-49 August 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO MIASCO

G.R. No. 141211 August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN

OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA,
ET AL.

 Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001augustdecisions.php?id=871 6/6