[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
44 views1 page

Pedro V. Provincial Board of Rizal

Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 revoking his license to operate a cockpit is invalid because (1) it impairs his acquired rights, (2) it was enacted with prejudice against him, and (3) it delegates powers to a special committee. However, the court held that (1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not a property right, and can be revoked for public interest, (2) asking a committee to study the sanitary effects is informational, not legislative, and (3) an ordinance suspending another to favor a license is valid.

Uploaded by

Fe Portabes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views1 page

Pedro V. Provincial Board of Rizal

Gregorio Pedro argues that Ordinance No. 36 revoking his license to operate a cockpit is invalid because (1) it impairs his acquired rights, (2) it was enacted with prejudice against him, and (3) it delegates powers to a special committee. However, the court held that (1) a cockpit license is a privilege, not a property right, and can be revoked for public interest, (2) asking a committee to study the sanitary effects is informational, not legislative, and (3) an ordinance suspending another to favor a license is valid.

Uploaded by

Fe Portabes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PEDRO V.

PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL


G. R. No. 34163, September 18, 1931

FACTS:

Gregorio Pedro argues for the nullity of Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, approved on December
29, 1928, by the temporary councillors appointed by the provincial governor of Rizal, Eligio
Naval, on the ground that (1) it impairs the acquired rights of said appellant; (2) it was enacted
on account of prejudice, because it was intended for a special and not a general purpose, namely
to prevent, at any cost, the opening, maintenance, and exploitation of the cockpit of the said
petitioner-appellant; and (3) it provides for special committee composed of persons who are not
members of the council, vested them with powers which of their very nature, cannot be delegated
by said council to that committee.

He further contends that, having obtained the proper permit to maintain, exploit, and open to the
public the cockpit in question, having paid the license fee and fulfilled all the requirements
provided by Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928, he has acquired a right which cannot be taken
away from him by Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928, which was subsequently approved.

ISSUE:

Whether a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit falls under property
rights which a person may not be deprived of without due process of law.

HELD:

NO. The court held: (1) That a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is
not property of which the holder may not be deprived without due process of law, but a mere
privilege which may be revoked when the public interests so require; (2) that the work entrusted
by a municipal council to a special sanitary committee to make a study of the sanitary effects
upon the neighbourhood of the establishment of a cockpit, is not legislative in character, but only
informational, and may be delegated; and (3) that an ordinance, approved by a municipal council
duly constituted, which suspends the effects of another which had been enacted to favor the
grantee of a cockpit license, is valid and legal.

You might also like