GR. No. 123456 | July 26, 2020e
Facts
Due to the resolution passed by the Sangguniang panlungsod of Gingoog City, the area where Casino’s cockpit was located was classified as a residential area. Thus, his permit to operate his cockpit was revoked. Subsequently, the area was again re-classified as a recreational area pursuant to SP’s majority vote on Resolution No. 378, and thus, the mayor (Lugod) issued a permit to operate the cockpit.
Respondent Gallera protested the operation before the Philippine Gamefowl Commission stating that no certificate of registration had as yet been issued by the PGC. Acting on this complaint, the operations of the cockpit were temporarily suspended. Both RTC and CA revoked the permit issued by the mayor.
Issue
W/N the contentions of Casino are correct.
Held
On appeal, Casino is arguing that (1) PGC only has a power of review and supervision over cockfights; and (2) Resolution 378 was validly passed by a majority vote (5-4). [Resp argues dapat ¾ votes]
On PGC’s power: It is true that PGC only has power of review and supervision. HOWEVER, this was validly exercised in this case over the acts performed by the local authorities. The power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessary to correct the acts of the subordinate and to see to it that he performs his duties in accordance with law. What the PGC did was merely to bring to the attention of the local authorities the Casino’s non-compliance with the rules involved in this case.On validity of Resolution No. 378: Needs ¾ votes, as mentioned in a separate Resolution (Reso No. 49), ¾ votes is needed. Although the charter of the City of Gingoog and the LGC only require a majority for the enactment of an ordinance/resolution, they must give way for a statute with special application (ITC: Reso 49 on licenses on cockpits).
Local Government 