HON. ALFREDO S. LIM, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, and the City of Manila, vs. HON. FELIPE G. PACQUING, as Judge, branch 40, Regional Trial Court of Manila and ASSOCIATED CORPORATION.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 115044
- Promulgated: 1995-01-27
- Ponente: Padilla, J.
Doctrine
Intervention is discretionary; courts must consider undue delay, prejudice to original parties, and whether intervenor's rights can be protected in a separate proceeding.
Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are provisional, intended to preserve the status quo ante litem motam pending resolution on the merits and do not decide the case's substantive issues.
Questions of whether to permit gambling (e.g., jai-alai wagering) rest primarily with the legislative and political branches; courts will not substitute their judgment on policy or morality for that of lawmakers.
Facts
Petitions arise from orders issued by respondent judge in Civil Case No. 88-45660, RTC Manila, Branch 40, assailed by Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (petitioner) and involving Associated Development Corporation (ADC) and jai-alai franchising issues.
The Republic sought to intervene and to challenge whether ADC possessed a valid franchise and whether presidential decree (P.D.) No. 771 revoked local jai-alai franchises.
Trial court (Judge Reyes) issued a temporary restraining order later converted to a preliminary injunction and a preliminary mandatory injunction; the propriety of these provisional orders was questioned.
The Court considered whether the petition in related G.R. No. 117263 could be treated as one for quo warranto and addressed intervention late in the proceedings.
Issues
Whether intervention by the Republic of the Philippines in G.R. No. 115044 was proper.
Whether P.D. No. 771 which revoked existing jai-alai franchises issued by local governments is unconstitutional (i.e., whether P.D. 771 validly cancelled Ordinance No. 7065 and ADC's alleged franchise).
Whether respondent Judge Reyes committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the temporary restraining order and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in Civil Case No. 94-71656 (G.R. No. 117263).
Whether ADC's franchise (Ordinance No. 7065) was valid despite lacking a stated duration and whether local governments had authority to grant such franchise in light of Executive Order No. 392.
Ruling
The Court allowed the Republic to intervene in G.R. No. 115044.
The Court declared Presidential Decree No. 771 valid and constitutional; P.D. 771 is a valid and subsisting law.
The Court held that respondent Judge Reyes committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing the TRO and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction insofar as they permitted wagering or betting on jai-alai results; such allowance cannot legally stand.
In related proceeding (G.R. No. 117263) the petition may be considered as one for quo warranto enabling resolution of ADC's franchise status.