Cockfighting Operations License As A Privilege And The Absence Of A Cause Of Action

The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Du v. Jayoma clarifies a fundamental principle in Philippine administrative law: a license to operate a cockpit is a mere privilege, not a vested property right. This distinction determines whether a license holder can sue for damages when a local government suspends operations. The case also underscores that a cause of action requires a legal right — without one, no lawsuit can prosper.

The Facts of the Case

In 1988, the Sangguniang Bayan of Mabini, Bohol, enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 1 requiring public bidding for the operation of a cockpit every four years. For the period 1989 to 1992, Engr. Edgardo Carabuena won the bid. However, when he failed to comply with legal requirements, the Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 127 authorizing Danilo Du to continue operating the cockpit until the winning bidder complied.

In July 1997, the Sangguniang Bayan discovered that Du had been operating in violation of the ordinance. It passed Municipal Resolution No. 065 suspending his operation. The mayor then ordered Du to desist from holding cockfighting activities.

Du filed a Petition for Prohibition with damages against the mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan members. He claimed he had a business permit valid until December 31, 1997, and that the suspension deprived him of due process.

The RTC and CA Decisions

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Du, awarding him moral damages, unearned income, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Du had no vested right to operate the cockpit — he was only granted a temporary privilege.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA and dismissed Du’s petition. The Court defined a cause of action as “the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.” Its essential elements are: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect that right; and (3) an act or omission violating that right, resulting in injury.

The Court found that Du had no legal right to operate the cockpit. Under Resolution No. 127, his authority would end on December 31, 1992, or upon the winning bidder’s compliance, whichever came first. He continued operating only because the Sangguniang Bayan failed to monitor the cockpit’s status.

Even Du’s business permit did not give him a license to operate. Under Section 447(a)(3)(v) of the Local Government Code of 1991, only the Sangguniang Bayan can authorize and license the establishment, operation, and maintenance of cockpits. Since no public bidding was conducted for 1993 to 1997, Du could not claim authorization.

License as a Mere Privilege

The Court cited settled jurisprudence: “a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of which the holder may not be deprived without due process of law, but a mere privilege that may be revoked when public interests so require.” This principle, rooted in Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal, means a cockpit license holder cannot claim deprivation of property when the privilege is revoked.

No Damages Without a Legal Right

The Court emphasized that injury alone does not entitle a person to damages. There must be damnum et injuria — the act must be both hurtful and wrongful. Since Du had no legal right to operate, he had no cause of action, and the suspension was justified.

Practical Takeaways

• A cockpit license is a privilege, not a property right. It may be revoked when public interest requires.
• A cause of action requires a legal right. Without one, a lawsuit for damages will fail.
• Only the Sangguniang Bayan can authorize cockpit operations under the Local Government Code. A business permit from the mayor is not sufficient.
• Local legislative resolutions are presumed valid unless proven otherwise. A party challenging them must present evidence of invalidity.
• Local governments should monitor licensed operations to avoid situations where unauthorized operators continue for years.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.