Lim vs.

Pacquing,
240 SCRA 649, G.R. No. 115044, G.R. No. 117263
Ponente: Judge Padilla
January 27, 1995

Doctrine:
No rule of statutory construction will consider any law a meaningless redundancy.
From the Dissenting of Justice Puno

Facts:
Associate Development Corporation (ADC) filed a motion for execution of a
final judgment rendered earlier which ordered the Mayor of the City of Manila, Hon.
Alfredo S. Lim, to immediately issue to ADC the permit/license to operate jai-alai in
Manila under Manila Ordinance No. 7065. Respondent Judge Pacquing issued in a
civil case the following orders which were assailed by Mayor Lim:

1. Order dated 28 March 1994 directing Mayor Lim to issue the permit/license to
operate the jai-alai in favor of ADC;
2. Order dated 11 April 1994 directing Mayor Lim to explain why he should not
be cited for contempt for noncompliance with the order dated 28 March 1994;
3. Order dated 20 April 1994 reiterating the previous order directing Mayor Lim
to immediately issue the permit/license to ADC

Petitioner Teofisto Guingona, Jr., as executive secretary, issued a directive to then

chairman of the Games and Amusement Board (GAB) Francisco R. Sumulong, Jr. to
hold the grant of authority to ADC to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila until
the following legal questions are properly resolved:
a. WON PD 771 (which revoked all existing jai-alai franchises issued by local
governments as of August 20, 1975) is constitutional;
b. Whether the City of Manila had the power to issue a jai-alai franchise in view
of Executive Order No. 392 (which transferred from local governments to the
GAB the power to regulate jai-alai)

ADC then filed another petition seeking to prevent GAB from withdrawing the
provisional authority that had earlier been granted to ADC. The RTC of Manila,
through Judge Vetino Reyes, issued a TRO enjoining the GAB from withdrawing
ADC’s provisional authority. Said TRO was then converted into a writ of preliminary
injunction upon ADC’s posting of a bond.

Subsequently, the Republic of the Philippines, through the GAB, intervened in

the case and the respondents were made to comment on the motions filed by GAB.
Meanwhile, Judge Reyes issued another order, this time, granting ADC a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction against Guingona and GAB to compel them to issue
in favor of ADC the authority to operate the jai-alai. Guingona and the new GAB
chairman then filed another petition assailing the order of Judge Reyes.

Issues:
WON the Associated Development Corporation has a valid and subsisting franchise
to maintain and operate the jai-alai;

Ruling:
NO. ADC has no valid franchise, after the passage of P.D. 771.

The Congress did not delegate to the City of Manila the power “to franchise”
wagers or betting, including the jai-alai, but retained for itself such power “to
franchise”. What Congress delegated to the City of Manila in R.A. No. 409, with
respect to wagers or betting, was the power to “license, permit or regulate” which
therefore means that a license or permit issued by the City of Manila to operate a
wager or betting activity, such as the jai-alai where bets are accepted, would not
amount to something meaningful UNLESS the holder of the permit or license was
also FRANCHISED by the national government to so operate. Since ADC has no
franchise from Congress to operate the jai-alai, it may not so operate even if it has
license or permit from the City Mayor to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila.

Dissenting Opinion: J. Puno

Again, legislative debate is a good source to determine the intent of a law.7

To top it all, the text of R. A No. 954 itself does not intimate that it is repealing any
existing law, especially section 18(jj) of R.A. No. 409, otherwise known as the
Charter of Manila. Indeed, R.A. No. 954 has no repealing provision. The reason is
obvious—it simply prohibited certain practices in jai-alai then still unregulated by the
laws of the land. It did not regulate aspects of jai-alai already regulated by existing
laws, like the matter of whether it is the national government alone that should issue
franchises to operate jai-alai games.