G.R. No.

L-12727

February 29, 1960

MANILA JOCKEY CL !, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. GAME" AN# AM "EMEN$" !OAR#, E$ AL., respondents-appellees. %&ILI%%INE RACING CL !, INC., petitioner-intervenor-appellant. Lichauco, Picazo and Agcaoili for appellant. First Assistant Government Corporate Counsel Simeon M. Gopengco and Attorney Pedro L. autista for appellee PCS!. Assistant Solicitor General "ose P. Ale#andro and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for the other appellees. Cesar S. de Guzman for appellant. !ARRERA, J.' This is a petition for declaratory relief filed by petitioner Manila Jockey Club, Inc., in the Court of First Instance Manila (Civil Case No. !"#$%, in &hich the 'hilippine (acin) Club, Inc., intervened as party in interest &ith leave of court, prayin) that *ud)+ent be rendered a)ainst respondents ,a+es and -+use+ents .oard (,-.%, 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice ('C/0%, and 12ecutive /ecretary Fortunato de 3eon4 (a% Interpretin) (epublic -cts Nos. 56 and !75" in such a +anner that the 5 /undays unreserved for charitable institutions and therefore belon)in) to the private racin) clubs under /ection $ of (epublic -ct No. 56 continue to pertain to said private entities, and that the 8 additional s&eepstakes races authori9ed under (epublic -ct No. !75" should be held on 8 of the !" /aturdays not reserved for any private entity or particular charitable institution under /ection $ of (epublic -ct No. 56, or on any other day of the &eek besides /unday, /aturday and le)al holiday: (b% ;oldin) that respondent 'C/0 does not have the ri)ht or po&er to appropriate or use the race tracks and e<uip+ent of petitioner &ithout its consent, nor can respondents co+pel petitioner to so allo& such use of its race tracks and e<uip+ent under pain of havin) its license revoked. (espondents duly filed their respective ans&ers to said petition and the case &as heard. -fter hearin), the court, on July 7, !67#, rendered a decision &hich, in part, reads4 The court does not dee+ it necessary to rule on the deprivation of property of the petitioner and the intervenor &ithout due process of la&, as feared by the+, because as they have stated, the 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice is usin) their pre+ises and e<uip+ent under separate contracts of lease voluntarily and &illin)ly entered into by the parties upon pay+ent of a correspondin) rental. There is therefore no deprivation of property &ithout due process of la&.

=herefore, the court is of the opinion and so holds that once a +onth on a /unday not reserved for the -nti-Tuberculosis /ociety, the =hite Cross and other charitable institutions by /ection $ of (epublic -ct No. 56, the 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice is authori9ed to hold one re)ular s&eepstakes dra& and races, pursuant to /ection 6 of (epublic -ct No. !75", thus reducin) the nu+ber of /undays &hich +ay be alloted to private entities by the ,a+es and -+use+ents .oard. . . . Fro+ this *ud)+ent, petitioner and intervenor interposed the present appeal. The issue is the proper place+ent of the si2 (8% additional racin) days )iven to the 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice, in virtue of (epublic -ct No. !75", approved on June !8, !678. The authori9ed racin) days specifically desi)nated and distributed in /ection $ of (epublic -ct No. 56, the basic la& on horse racin) in the 'hilippines, as later a+ended by (epublic -ct No. 6> , are as follo&s4
-. /undays4 (!% For the 'hilippine -nti-Tuberculosis /ociety .................. ("% For the 'hilippine Charity /&eepstakes 0ffice ('C/0% . ( % For the =hite Cross, Inc. ............................................. ($% For the ,rand ?erby (ace of the 'hilippine -ntiTuberculosis /ociety ........................................................ Total ................................................................ !" /undays 8 /undays $ /undays ! /unday " /undays

(7% For private individuals and entities duly licensed by the ,-., other /undays not reserved under this -ct, as +ay be deter+ined by the ,-. ........................................... "6 /undays or 5 for Total for the year .................... or 7 for leap years. .. /aturdays4 (!% For the 'hilippine -nti-Tuberculosis /ociety ..... ("% For the =hite Cross, Inc. ....................................... !" /aturdays $ /aturdays 3eap years 7" /undays

( % For private Individuals and entities duly licensed by ,-. and as +ay be deter+ined by it .................................. "$ /aturdays ($% For races authori9ed by the 'resident for charitable, relief, or civic purposes other than the particular charitable institutions na+ed above, all other /aturdays not reserved for the latter .................... !" /aturdays Total ................................................................ 7" /aturdays

C. Legal $olidays4 -ll, e2cept Thursday and Friday of the ;oly =eek, July $th and ?ece+ber 5th, have been reserved for private individuals and entities duly licensed by the ,-.. -s stated, (epublic -ct No. !75" increased the s&eepstakes dra& and races of the 'C/0 to t&elve, but &ithout specifyin) the days on &hich they are to be run. To acco++odate these additional races, the ,-. resolved to reduce the nu+ber of /undays assi)ned to private individuals and entities by si2. -ppellants protested, contendin) that the said increased should be taken fro+ the !" /aturdays reserved to the 'resident, for charitable, relief, or civic purposes, or should be assi)ned to any other day of the &eek besides /unday, /aturday, and le)al holiday. -ppellants@ contention cannot be sustained. /ection $ (epublic -ct No. 56, as a+ended by (epublic -ct No. 6> , by e2press ter+s, specifically reserved " /undays and !8 /aturdays for the 'hilippine -nti-Tuberculosis /ociety, the =hite Cross, Inc. and the 'C/0, and !" /aturdays to the 'resident for other charitable, relief, or civic purposes. These days can not be disposed of by the ,-. &ithout authority of la&. -s to the re+ainin) racin) days, the la& provides4 /1C. $. %acing days.A'rivate individuals and entities duly licensed by the Co++ission on (aces (no& ,-.% +ay hold horse races on /undays not reserved under this -ct, on t&enty-four /aturdays as +ay be deter+ined by the said Co++ission (,-.%, and on le)al holidays, e2cept Thursday and Friday of ;oly =eek, July fourth, co++only kno&n as Independence ?ay, and ?ece+ber thirtieth, co++only kno&n as (i9al ?ay. It is clear fro+ the above-<uoted provision that appellants have no vested ri)ht to the unreserved /undays, or even to the "$ /aturdays (e2cept, perhaps, on the holidays%, because their holdin) of races on these days is +erely per+issive, sub*ect to the licensin) and deter+ination by the ,-.. =hen, therefore, (epublic -ct No. !75" &as enacted increasin) by si2 (8% the s&eepstakes dra& and races, but &ithout specifyin) the days for holdin) the+, the ,-. had no alternative e2cept to +ake roo+ for the additional races, as it did, for+ a+on) the only available racin) days unreserved by any la& A the /undays on &hich the private individuals and entities have been per+itted to hold their races, sub*ect to licensin) and deter+ination by the ,-.. It is su))ested that the ,-. should have chosen any &eek days or /aturday afternoons. In the first place, &eek days are out of the <uestion. The la& does not authori9e the holdin) of horse races &ith bettin) on &eek days (/ee -rticle !6> of the (evised 'enal Code%. /econdly, s&eepstakes races have al&ays been held on /undays. .esides, it is not possible to hold the+ on /aturday afternoons as, it is clai+ed, a &hole day is necessary for the +i2in) of the s&eepstakes balls, the dra&in) of &innin) s&eepstakes nu+bers, and the runnin) of the s&eepstakes races. .e that as it +ay, since the la& has )iven certain a+ount of discretion to the ,-. in deter+inin) and allocatin) racin) days not specifically reserved, and since the court does not find that a )rave abuse of this discretion has been co++itted, there see+s to be no reason, le)al or other&ise, to set aside the resolution of the ,-..

Further+ore, appellants contend that even )rantin) that the si2 (8% additional s&eepstakes races should be run on /undays, yet if they are held on a club race day, the ,-. should only insert the+ in the club races and not )iven the &hole day to the 'C/0, to the e2clusion of appellants. In support of this contention, the follo&in) <uotation fro+ the debate in the ;ouse of (epresentatives before votin) on ;ouse .ill No. 7# ", &hich beca+e (epublic -ct No. !75", is cited4 Mr. -.131?-. If there are no +ore a+end+ents, I +ove that &e vote on the +easure. Mr. M-(C0/. Mr. /peaker, before &e proceed to vote on this bill, I &ant to +ake it of record that it is the clear intention of the $ouse to increase &y t'o the ten regular and special S'eepsta(es races ma(ing it all in all, t'elve, and that in cases 'here a s'eepsta(es race falls in a clu& race days the S'eepsta(es races should &e inserted in the clu& race. Mr. -.131?-. The )entle+an fro+ Ilocos Norte is correct. . . . (t.s.n., 'roceedin)s in ;ouse of (epresentatives, Con)ress, May !#, !678: e+phasis supplied.% -ppellants cite in their briefs a nu+ber of authorities sustainin) the vie& that in the interpretation of statutes susceptible of &idely differin) constructions, le)islative debates and e2planatory state+ents by +e+bers of the le)islature +ay be resorted to, to thro& li)ht on the +eanin) of the &ords used in the statutes. Bpon the other hand, the appellees, like&ise, <uote in their briefs other authorities to the effect that state+ents +ade by the individual +e+bers of the le)islature as to the +eanin) of provisions in the bill subse<uently enacted into la&, +ade durin) the )eneral debate on the bill on the floor of each le)islative house, follo&in) its presentation by a standin) co++ittee, are )enerally held to be in ad+issable as an aid in construin) the statute. 3e)islative debates are e2pressive of the vie&s and +otives of individual +e+bers and are not safe )uides and, hence, +ay not be resorted to in ascertainin) the +eanin) and purpose of the la&+akin) body. It is i+possible to deter+ine &ith certainty &hat construction &as put upon an act by the +e+bers of the le)islative body that passed the bill, by resortin) to the speeches of the +e+bers thereof. Those &ho did not speak, +ay not have a)reed &ith those &ho did: and those &ho spoke, +i)ht differ fro+ each other.! In vie& of these conflictin) authorities, no appreciable reliance can safely be placed on any of the+. It is to be noted in the specific case before us, that &hile Con)ress+en Marcos and -beleda &ere, ad+ittedly, of the vie& that the additional s&eepstakes races +ay be inserted in the club races, still there is nothin) in (epublic -ct No. !75", as it &as finally enacted, &hich &ould indicate that such an understandin) on the part of these t&o +e+bers of the 3o&er ;ouse of Con)ress &ere received the sanction or confor+ity of their collea)ues, for the la& is absolutely devoid of any such indication. This is, therefore, not a case &here a doubtful &ordin) is sou)ht to be interpreted: rather, if &e adopt appellants@ theory, &e &ould be supplyin) so+ethin) that does not appear in the statute. It is pertinent to observe here that, as pointed out by one of appellants@ o&n cited authorities," in the interpretation of a le)al docu+ent, especially a

statute, unlike in the interpretation of an ordinary &ritten docu+ent, it is not enou)h to obtain infor+ation to the intention or +eanin) of the author or authors, but also to see &hether the intention or +eanin) has been e2pressed in such a &ay as to )ive it le)al effect and validity. In short, the purpose of the in<uiry, is not only to kno& &hat the author +eant by the lan)ua)e he used, but also to see that the lan)ua)e used sufficiently e2presses that +eanin). The le)al act, so to speak, is +ade up of t&o ele+ents A an internal and an e2ternal one: it ori)inates in intention and is perfected by e2pression. Failure of the latter +ay defeat the for+er. The follo&in), taken fro+ 76 Corpus Juris !5!#, is in the line &ith this theory4 The intention of the le)islature to &hich effect +ust be )iven is that e2pressed in the statute and the courts &ill not in<uire into the +otives &hich influence the le)islature, or individual +e+bers, in votin) for its passa)e: nor indeed as to the intention of the drafts+an, or the le)islature, so far as it has been e2pressed in the act. /o, in ascertainin) the +eanin) of a statute the court &ill not be )overned or influenced by the vie&s or opinions of any or all +e+bers of the le)islature or its le)islative co++ittees or any other persons. Bpon the other hand, at the ti+e of the enact+ent of (epublic -ct No. !75" in June, !678, the lon), continuous, and unifor+ practice &as that all s&eepstakes dra&s and races &ere held on /undays and durin) the &hole day. =ith this back)round, &hen Con)ress chose not to specify in e2press ter+s ho& the additional s&eepstakes dra&s and races &ould be held, it is safe to conclude that it did not intend to disturb the then prevailin) situation and practice. C0n the principle of conte+poraneous e2position, co++on usa)e and practice under the statute, or a course of conduct indicatin) a particular undertakin) of it, &ill fre<uently be of )reat value in deter+inin) its real +eanin), especially &here the usa)e has been ac<uired in by all parties concerned and has e2tended over a lon) period of ti+e: . . . (76 C. J. !5" %. 3ike&ise, the lan)ua)e of (epublic -ct No. !75" in authori9in) the increase, clearly speaks of re)ular s&eepstakes dra&s and races. If the intention of Con)ress &ere to authori9e additional s&eepstakes dra&s only &hich could, ad+ittedly, be inserted in the club races, the la& &ould not have included regular races: and since re)ular s&eepstakes races &ere specifically authori9ed, and it &ould be confusin), inconvenient, if not i+possible to +i2 these s&eepstakes races &ith the re)ular club races all on the sa+e day (and it has never been done before%, the conclusion see+s inevitable that the additional s&eepstakes dra&s and races &ere intended to be held on a &hole day, separate and apart fro+ the club races. -ppellants@ contention that to co+pel the+ to per+it the 'C/0 to use their pre+ises and e<uip+ent a)ainst their &ill &ould constitute deprivation of property &ithout due process of la&, deserves no serious consideration. -s the lo&er court has found, every ti+e the 'C/0 uses appellants@ pre+ises and e<uip+ent, they are paid rentals in accordance &ith the ter+s of separate contracts of lease e2istin) bet&een the+ and the 'C/0.

The decision appealed fro+, bein) in consonance &ith the above findin)s and considerations of this Court, the sa+e is hereby affir+ed, &ith costs a)ainst the appellants. /o ordered. Paras, C. "., engzon, La&rador, Concepcion, %eyes, ". . L., )ndencia, and Gutierrez *avid, ""., concu