Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 151 views

    25.) Pedro vs. Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Aphr
    The petitioner owned a cockpit located within 1,500 meters of a hospital. The municipal council passed an ordinance increasing the minimum distance between cockpits and hospitals to 1,000 meters. A subsequent ordinance suspended the previous one, effectively reinstating the 1,500 meter rule. The petitioner argued this impaired his rights and was intended to target his cockpit specifically. However, the court ruled the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, as operating a cockpit is a privilege that can be revoked when public interests require it, such as protecting public health.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    25.) Pedro vs. Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Aphr
    151 views1 page
    The petitioner owned a cockpit located within 1,500 meters of a hospital. The municipal council passed an ordinance increasing the minimum distance between cockpits and hospitals to 1,000 meters. A subsequent ordinance suspended the previous one, effectively reinstating the 1,500 meter rule. The petitioner argued this impaired his rights and was intended to target his cockpit specifically. However, the court ruled the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, as operating a cockpit is a privilege that can be revoked when public interests require it, such as protecting public health.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    25.)Pedro vs. Provincial Board of Rizal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner owned a cockpit located within 1,500 meters of a hospital. The municipal council passed an ordinance increasing the minimum distance between cockpits and hospitals to 1,000 meters. A subsequent ordinance suspended the previous one, effectively reinstating the 1,500 meter rule. The petitioner argued this impaired his rights and was intended to target his cockpit specifically. However, the court ruled the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, as operating a cockpit is a privilege that can be revoked when public interests require it, such as protecting public health.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    151 views1 page

    25.) Pedro vs. Provincial Board of Rizal

    Uploaded by

    Aphr
    The petitioner owned a cockpit located within 1,500 meters of a hospital. The municipal council passed an ordinance increasing the minimum distance between cockpits and hospitals to 1,000 meters. A subsequent ordinance suspended the previous one, effectively reinstating the 1,500 meter rule. The petitioner argued this impaired his rights and was intended to target his cockpit specifically. However, the court ruled the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, as operating a cockpit is a privilege that can be revoked when public interests require it, such as protecting public health.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    USA College of Law

    LAST NAME 1-SECTION


    GREGORIO PEDRO, petitioner-appellant, 
    Case Name vs.
    THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
    Topic Police Power
    Case No. | Date | September 18, 1931
    Ponente VILLA-REAL, J.:
    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
    Doctrine revoked when the public interests so require.

    RELEVANT FACTS
     Gregorio Pedro, acquired by absolute sale all the rights and interests of the "Sociedad Bighani" cockpit.
     The said cockpit was within the radius of 1,500 meters from the hospital of the Philippine Anti-tuberculosis
    Society in Santol.
     On September 18, 1927, the municipal council of Caloocan enacted Ordinance No. 34, providing in the first
    section, cockpits might be established at a distance of not less than 1,500 meters from another licensed
    cockpit, public schoolhouse, or any hospital or charitable institution existing within the municipal radius.
     Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928, amending section 1 of Ordinance No. 34, series of 1927, providing, among
    other things that only one cockpit could be established at a distance of not less than 1,000 meters from
    another licensed cockpit, and 500 meters from any hospital or charitable institution within the municipality
    of Caloocan.
     Ordinance No. 36 was passed to correct said irregularity, suspended the effects of said Ordinance No. 35,
    impliedly reestablishing Ordinance No. 34. (Created by a special committee)
     The appellant argues for the nullity of Ordinance No. 36, 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; 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.

    ISSUE: Whether Ordinance No. 36 was passed due to 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.

    RULING:
    NO. The said ordinance was in accordance with the public interest. Also, due processed had been observed
    since a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is a mere privilege which may be revoked
    when the public interests so require.

    You might also like