Rolando Canet v. Julieta Decena, G.R. No. 155344, January 20, 2004
I. The Facts:
Petitioner Rolando Canet was a coc!it o!erator in "ula, Ca#arines $ur w%ile Res!ondent Julieta Decena was t%e &ayor. Canet was allowed to o!erate and #aintain a Coc!it in "ula as !er Resolution No. 04'. (n 1''', t%e $an))unian) "ayan !assed *rdinance No. 001, re)ulatin) t%e o!eration o+ coc!its and ot%er related )a#e+owl activities in "ula and !rovidin) !rovidin) !enalties +or any violation to its !rovisions w%ic% was denied -y Decena -ecause it does not contain rules and re)ulations on coc+i)%tin) and ot%er related )a#e+owl activities activities and a se!ara-ility se!ara-ility clause. %e $an))unian) "ayan resolved to s%el+ t%e *rdinance inde+initely. &eanw%ile, Canet +iled an a!!lication +or #ayor/s !er#it -ut was was denied -y Decena on t%e )round t%at under t%e ocal Govern#ent Code o+ 1''1, t%e aut%ority to )ive licenses +or t%e esta-lis%#ent, o!eration and #aintenance o+ coc+i)%tin) and co##ercial -reedin) o+ )a#ecocs is vested in t%e $an))unian) "ayan. %ere+ore, s%e cannot issue t%e said !er#it inas#uc% as t%ere was no ordinance !assed -y t%e $an))unian) "ayan aut%oriin) t%e sa#e. Citin) Resolution No. 04', allowin) %i# to o!erate a coc!it, and local #unici!al ta ordinances, w%ic% )enerally !rovides +or t%e issuance o+ a #ayor/s !er#it +or t%e o!eration o+ -usinesses, Canet sued Decena and sou)%t to -e )iven !er#it. II.
The Issue:
%et%er or not Decena, in %er ca!acity as &unici!al &ayor, can -e co#!elled to issue t%e necessary -usiness !er#it to !etitioner wit%out a #unici!al ordinance t%at would e#!ower %er to do so. III.
The Ruling:
No. o co#!el Decena Decena to issue t%e #ayor/s #ayor/s !er#it would not only only -e a violation o+ t%e t%e e!licit !rovisions !rovisions o+ $ec. 44 o+ t%e ocal Govern#ent Code o+ 1''1, -ut would also -e an undue encroac%#ent on res!ondents ad#inistrative !rero)atives. ence, t%ere -ein) in e++ect no ordinance allowin) t%e o!eration o+ a coc!it, Resolution No. 04', aut%oriin) Canet to esta-lis%, o!erate and #aintain a coc!it in "ula, Ca#arines $ur cannot -e i#!le#ented. 6lso, t%e #unici!al ta ordinances relied u!on -y Canet contain )eneral !rovisions +or t%e issuance o+ -usiness !er#its -ut do not contain s!eci+ic !rovisions !rescri-in) t%e reasona-le +ees to -e !ain in t%e o!eration o+ coc!its and ot%er )a#e +owl activities. 7ven on t%e assu#!tion t%at t%ere is in +act a le)islative )a! caused -y suc% an o#ission, neit%er could t%e Court !resu#e ot%erwise and su!!ly t%e details t%ereo+, -ecause a le)islative lacuna cannot -e +illed -y a 8udicial +iat. +iat.
