Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Baguio City FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

170914 April 13, 2011

STEFAN TITO MIOZA Petitioner, s! o!. CESAR TOMAS "OPEZ, i! #i$ o%%i&i'l &'p'&i() '$ M')or '!* C#'ir, "oo! Co&+pi( Ar,!' -i**i!. '!* A/'r*$ Co00i((,,, i($ M,01,r$ !'0,l)2 ERMINIGI"3O M. CA"IFORNIA, NOE" CASTRO4O, 4ESSE SE5I""A, FORTUNATO GARA6, PERFECTO MANTE, ROGE"IO GANA3OS, P7INSP. 4ASEN MAGARAN, SANGGUNIANG -A6AN OF "OON, -O O", r,pr,$,!(,* 1) i($ Pr,$i*i!. O%%i&,r, 5i&, M')or RAU" -AR-ARONA, '!* MARCE"O EPE, Respon"ents! D#CISION 3E" CASTI""O, J.: There can be no legal "uel in court $hen the one $ho "e%an"s satisfaction fro% the allege" offen"er is not e en the offen"e" party! &hen petitioner's suit for annul%ent of bi""ing of a coc(pit franchise an" for "a%ages $as "is%isse" by the lo$er courts on the groun" that he is not the real party in interest, he no$ co%es before this Court to assert his legal personality to sue! This Petition for Re ie$ on Certiorari assails the )uly *+, *,,- Decision. of the Court of /ppeals 0C/1 in C/23!R! SP No! 454+6 $hich "is%isse" the Petition for Certiorari file" before it! 7i(e$ise assaile" is the Dece%ber *, *,,Resolution* "enying the 8otion for Reconsi"eration thereof! Factual /ntece"ents For se eral years since .+44, petitioner Stefan Tito 8i9o:a $as the "uly license" o$ner an" operator 5 of the 7oon Coc(pit /rena in Cogon Norte, 7oon, Bohol! Because of the "ilapi"ation of the buil"ing, the increasing rentals an" the lot o$ner's notice for hi% to acate by October *,,., petitioner transferre" his business operation to Bgy! 7intuan in 7oon! In 8arch *,,., petitioner began the construction of a ne$ coc(pit after securing fro% the %unicipal officials a buil"ing per%it, an electrical per%it6 an" a fencing per%it!- By the en" of *,,., the coc(pit $as certifie" by the %unicipal engineer as ;-< co%plete!; On )anuary .., *,,*, respon"ent 8unicipal 8ayor Cesar To%as 7ope: 08ayor 7ope:1 issue" in fa or of petitioner a te%porary per%it to hol" coc(fights at the ne$ly2built coc(fighting arena in Bgy! 7intuan beginning )anuary .5, *,,*!= Si> "ays later, ho$e er, the Sangguniang Bayan issue" Resolution No! ,*2,.;, Series of *,,*4 "eclaring the coc(pit in Bgy! 7intuan as unlicense" an" that the only license" coc(pit is the one in Cogon Norte! The resolution li(e$ise state" that the coc(pit in Bgy! 7intuan has no benches, toilets, or eateries an" that the place is prone to ehicular acci"ents for lac( of par(ing space! /s a result, 8ayor 7ope: re o(e" petitioner's te%porary license to operate! Subse?uently, 8unicipal Or"inance No! ,52,,. Series of *,,5 or the @Coc(fighting Or"inance of 7oon@ + $as appro e" to regulate coc(fighting in the %unicipality! Pursuant thereto, the Sangguniang Bayan enacte" Resolution No! ,52.;., Series of *,,5., $hich opene" for public bi""ing a *-2year franchise of the coc(pit operation in 7oon! The 7oon Coc(pit an" /$ar"s Bi""ing Co%%ittee sche"ule" for /ugust *-, *,,5 the pre?ualification conference an" actual bi""ing of the franchise of the 7oon Coc(pit!..

Four ?ualifie" parties sub%itte" their cash bi"s na%ely, Ricar"o Togonon, Ric(y 8asa%ayor, 8arcelo #pe 08arcelo1, an" petitioner's uncle, )ose Ay 0)ose1!.* /ccor"ing to petitioner, he "i" not personally Boin the bi""ing since he (ne$ that 8ayor 7ope: $ill only th$art his bi" because of the case he file" against hi% before the O%bu"s%an in line $ith the cancellation of the te%porary per%it earlier issue" to hi%! Cence, it $as petitioner's uncle $ho sub%itte" the bi" for an" on his behalf! During the con"uct of the public bi""ing, 8arcelo $as "eclare" the $inner.5 an" a franchise for the coc(pit operation in 7oon $as grante" in his fa or by $ay of 8unicipal Or"inance No! ,52,,=, Series of *,,5!.6 On )anuary *+, *,,6, petitioner file" a Co%plaint.- $ith the Regional Trial Court 0RTC1 of Bohol in Tagbilaran City against 8ayor 7ope:, the %e%bers of the Sangguniang Bayan, the %e%bers of the 7oon Coc(pit Bi""ing an" /$ar"s Co%%ittee, an" the franchise a$ar"ee, 8arcelo, for /nnul%ent of both the bi""ing process an" 8unicipal Or"inance No! ,52,,=, Series of *,,5 an" for Da%ages! Petitioner allege" that the bi""ing $as rigge" an" frau"ulently %anipulate" to benefit 8arcelo, 8ayor 7ope:'s ru%ore" business partner an" financial bac(er! Consi"ering the rigge" bi""ing, petitioner clai%e" that the or"inance a$ar"ing the franchise to 8arcelo has no basis! /nent his clai% for "a%ages, petitioner allege" that respon"ents acte" in ba" faith in granting hi% the necessary per%its to construct a coc(pit in Bgy! 7intuan only to re o(e the% $hen his ne$ coc(pit $as about to be finishe" an" after he ha" alrea"y spent appro>i%ately a %illion pesos for construction! Because of these unBust, illegal an" %alicious acts of respon"ents, petitioner clai%e" that he suffere" great an>iety an" e>tre%e preBu"ice $hich entitles hi% to %oral "a%ages of P*,,,,,,!,,, e>e%plary "a%ages of P.-,,,,,!,, an" actual "a%ages e?ui alent to the a%ount spent for the construction of his ne$ coc(pit or P.,,,,,,,,!,,! Respon"ents "i" not file their /ns$er e>cept for 8arcelo $ho file" an /ns$er2in2Inter ention .; a erring that the suit $as %eant to harass an" to bloc( the gran" coc( "erby that he $as about to stage! Ce %aintaine" that no irregularity occurre" in the bi""ing as the officials Bu"iciously perfor%e" their "uties! 8arcelo subse?uently %o e" to "is%iss petitioner's co%plaint %ainly for lac( of cause of action an" for estoppel,.= arguing that petitioner $as not e en one of the bi""ers an" that he ne er file" any protest "uring the bi""ing! Ruling of the Regional Trial Court On 8arch +, *,,6, the RTC "is%isse" the co%plaint on the groun" that petitioner $as not the proper party to sue since he $as not e en a bi""ing participant in the allege" rigge" bi""ing of the coc(pit franchise! The trial court also foun" petitioner un"eser ing of "a%ages! The RTC ratiocinate" in this $iseD In the case of the coc(pit arena of plaintiff in 7intuan, it is to be note" that the Sangguniang Bayan, un"er 8unicipal Or"inance No! ,*2,.;, S2*,,*, ha" earlier "eclare" it unfit an" sub2stan"ar" being lac(ing of EsicF facilities an" prone to ehicular acci"ent $hich consi"erations the Court fin"s not only EuntenableF but of para%ount i%portance as it is the boun"en "uty of any local go ern%ent or any business proprietor for that %atter to ensure the safety of the life an" li%bs of the users to %aintain public patronage! /n" ha ing a$ar"e" the franchise to "efen"ant 8arcelo #pe, plaintiff has no business to ?uestion the Bu"g%ent of the Sangguniang Bayan on the %atter as it "i" not i%pair any contract or right grante" to thir" persons %uch less the plaintiff as the per%it grante" to hi% by the 8ayor $as only te%porary that "i" not confer a este" right for the issuance of a franchise! But e en granting arguen"o that the bi""ing $as rigge", the inci"ent shoul" ha e been ?uestione" right then an" there or reasonably after the sub%ission of the Bi""ing Report to the Sangguniang Bayan, yet, the recor"s sho$s the contrary! In fact, it too( plaintiff fi e %onths later to "o it an" surprisingly in ti%e for the opening acti ity of the 3ran" Derby $hich $oul" only suggest that plaintiff EsicF intention $as %alicious an" in ba" faith an" $as only out to put "efen"ant in public sha%e an" e%barrass%ent ha" his application for te%porary restraining or"er succee"e"! Besi"es, plaintiff "i" not personally participate in the bi""ing, so that, it is correct to say that he is not a party2in2interest thereto an", thus, estoppe" to bring the action hi%self in court! Further%ore, he $as affor"e" all legal re%e"ies therefor, ha ing ta(en his cause to the O%bu"s%an but the sa%e $as "is%isse" for being bereft of propriety! If e er he suffere" "a%ages in the

construction of his ne$ coc(pit in 7intuan, it $as his fault for not EsicF cautious enough to in est in the enterprise $ithout first obtaining a franchise! &herefore, in ie$ of all the foregoings, the instant case is hereby or"ere" DIS8ISS#D $ith costs against plaintiff!.4 Petitioner file" a 8otion for Reconsi"eration.+ insisting that he is a party2in2interest because as a license" coc(pit operator for se eral years, he stan"s to be benefite" or inBure" by the court's Bu"g%ent! The RTC ne ertheless "is%isse" petitioner's %otion for reconsi"eration in its 8arch .=, *,,6 Or"er! *, Ruling of the Court of /ppeals Petitioner thus file" a Petition for Certiorari*. before the C/ "oc(ete" as C/23!R! SP No! 454+6! Ce argue" that Gnot being a party2in2interest' is not one of the enu%erate" groun"s for "is%issing a case un"er the Rules of Court! /n" granting that it is a groun", he clai%e" that he $as "enie" "ue process $hen the RTC "is%isse" his action $ithout allo$ing hi% to present e i"ence to pro e that he is a party2in2interest! Petitioner asserte" that $hile he "i" not personally participate in the bi""ing, it $as )ose, his uncle, $ho sub%itte" the bi" on his behalf! Ce also asserte" that 8arcelo's clai%s in his %otion to "is%iss $ere %atters of "efense an" ?uestions of fact that necessitate" a trial on the %erits $hich $as ne er con"ucte"! In its assaile" )uly *+, *,,- Decision,** the C/ stresse" that "ue process "oes not necessarily entail a full2blo$n trial, an" in petitioner's case, he $as clearly gi en all the opportunities to be hear"! 8oreo er, the C/ foun" no gra e abuse of "iscretion on the part of the RTC in "is%issing petitioner's suit for lac( of cause of action for $ant of personality to sue! The C/ e>plaine", vizD /s sho$n in the recor"s of the case, it $as the petitioner's uncle an" not the petitioner hi%self $ho participate" in the bi"! The fact that the petitioner is the o$ner of the ne$ an" e>isting coc(pit an" a license" coc(pit operator for the past fourteen 0.61 years is irrele ant! To e%phasi:e, the present co%plaint in"ee" has no cause of action! Settle" is the "octrine that a ali" groun" %ust appear on the face of the co%plaint! The test of the sufficiency of the facts allege" in a co%plaint as constituting a cause of action is $hether or not, a"%itting the facts allege", the court %ight ren"er a ali" Bu"g%ent upon the sa%e in accor"ance $ith the prayer of the co%plaint! Fro% the face of the co%plaint, it is %anifest that the petitioner is not the real party in interest for he $as not e en a participant in the /ugust *-, *,,5 bi""ing! Therefore, the petitioner, ha ing no personality to sue has no cause of action against the "efen"ants! > > >*5 Cence, the C/ "ispose" of the petition as follo$sD &C#R#FOR#, pre%ises consi"ere", this petition is "enie" "ue course an" accor"ingly "is%isse"! The Or"er "ate" 8arch +, *,,6 of the Regional Trial Court, =th )u"icial Region, Branch 5, City of Tagbilaran, in Ci il Case No! ;+,5 is hereby /FFIR8#D! SO ORD#R#D!*6 Petitioner file" a 8otion for Reconsi"eration*- but it $as "enie" in a Resolution*; "ate" Dece%ber *, *,,-! Cence, this petition! The Parties' /rgu%ents Petitioner argues that he is a party because he stan"s to be preBu"ice" by the rigge" bi""ing an" the assaile" or"inance as he $as in fact the highest bi""er of the coc(fight franchise, it ha ing been agree" by their fa%ily that

his uncle, )ose, $oul" only sub%it the bi" on petitioner's behalf! Petitioner clai%s that his bi" $as the highest if 8arcelo's ?uestionable bi" $as e>clu"e"! On respon"ents' part, they %aintain that petitioner has no cause of action against the%!*= I$$8, The sole issue to be resol e" is $hether petitioner has the stan"ing to challenge the bi""ing procee"ings an" the issuance of Or"inance No! ,52,,=, Series of *,,5! Our Ruling It is a general rule that e ery action %ust be prosecute" or "efen"e" in the na%e of the real party2in2interest, $ho stan"s to be benefite" or inBure" by the Bu"g%ent in the suit, or the party entitle" to the a ails of the suit! *4 )urispru"ence "efines interest as @%aterial interest, an interest in issue an" to be affecte" by the "ecree, as "istinguishe" fro% %ere interest in the ?uestion in ol e", or a %ere inci"ental interest! By real interest is %eant a present substantial interest, as "istinguishe" fro% a %ere e>pectancy or a future, contingent, subor"inate, or conse?uential interest!@*+ @To ?ualify a person to be a real party2in2interest in $hose na%e an action %ust be prosecute", he %ust appear to be the present real o$ner of the right sought to be enforce"!@ 5, An"er this "efinition, petitioner, not being one of the bi""ers clearly has no personality to contest the allege" rigge" bi""ing as $ell as to pray for the annul%ent of Or"inance No! ,52,,=, Series of *,,5 $hich grante" the franchise to 8arcelo! The fact that he o$ns the coc(pit in Bgy! 7intuan "oes not clothe hi% $ith legal stan"ing to ha e the bi""ing procee"ings annulle" an" 8arcelo strippe" off of the coc(pit franchise! # en assu%ing that the bi""ing procee"ing $as rigge" thereby "is?ualifying 8arcelo as a bi""er, the highest bi""er $oul" still be )ose, an" not the petitioner $ho $as not e en a participant! Contrary to petitioner's clai% that )ose $as his representati e, recor"s sho$ that )ose acte" in his personal capacity $hen he applie" to be one of the bi""ers of the coc(pit franchise! 5. Ne er $as it sho$n that he $as bi""ing on behalf of so%eone else, particularly petitioner! Petitioner's agree%ent $ith his fa%ily an" )ose, i!e!, that the latter $oul" bi" on behalf of the petitioner, "oes not bin" the respon"ents! Thus, ha" )ose been the highest bi""er, the franchise $oul" ha e been a$ar"e" in his na%e an" not in fa or of petitioner! )ose $oul" be the one accountable to the Sangguniang Bayan $ith regar" to fulfill%ent of the obligations of sai" franchise! /ll tol", this Court fin"s no reason to "isturb the Bu"g%ent of the C/ affir%ing the RTC's "is%issal of petitioner's action! Suffice it to state that on the sole basis of the allegations of the co%plaint, the court %ay "is%iss the case for lac( of cause of action! &C#R#FOR#, the Petition is hereby D#NI#D! The assaile" Decision an" Resolution of the Court of /ppeals in C/23!R! SP No! 454+6 "ate" )uly *+, *,,- an" Dece%ber *, *,,-, respecti ely, are /FFIR8#D! SO OR3ERE3. MARIANO C. 3E" CASTI""O /ssociate )ustice