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, -OO", r,pr,$,!(,* 1) i($ Pr,$i*i!. O%%i&,r, 5i&,
M')or RAU" -AR-ARONA, '!* MARCE"O EPE, Respon"ents!
D # C I S I O N
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 een 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 Reie$ 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 seeral 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%it
6
an" a fencing per%it!
-
By the en" of *,,., the coc(pit
$as certifie" by the %unicipal engineer as ;-< co%plete!
;
On )anuary .., *,,*, respon"ent 8unicipal 8ayor Cesar
To%as 7ope: 08ayor 7ope:1 issue" in faor of petitioner a te%porary per%it to hol" coc(fights at the ne$ly2built
coc(fighting arena in Bgy! 7intuan beginning )anuary .5, *,,*!
=

Si> "ays later, ho$eer, the Sangguniang Bayan issue" Resolution No! ,*2,.;, Series of *,,*
4
"eclaring the coc(pit
in Bgy! 7intuan as unlicense" an" that the only license" coc(pit is the one in Cogon Norte! The resolution li(e$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: reo(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
approe" 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 faor 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 reo(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 $hich entitles
hi% to %oral "a%ages of P*,,,,,,!,,, e>e%plary "a%ages of P.-,,,,,!,, an" actual "a%ages e?uialent to the
a%ount spent for the construction of his ne$ coc(pit or P.,,,,,,,,!,,!
Respon"ents "i" not file their /ns$er e>cept for 8arcelo $ho file" an /ns$er2in2Interention
.;
aerring 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 %oe" to "is%iss petitioner's co%plaint %ainly for lac( of cause of action an" for estoppel,
.=

arguing that petitioner $as not een one of the bi""ers an" that he neer 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 een a bi""ing participant in the allege" rigge" bi""ing of the coc(pit franchise! The trial court also
foun" petitioner un"esering 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 $hich consi"erations the Court fin"s not only EuntenableF but of para%ount i%portance
as it is the boun"en "uty of any local goern%ent or any business proprietor for that %atter to ensure the safety of
the life an" li%bs of the users to %aintain public patronage! /n" haing a$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 een granting arguen"o that the
bi""ing $as rigge", the inci"ent shoul" hae been ?uestione" right then an" there or reasonably after the sub%ission
of the Bi""ing Report to the Sangguniang Bayan, yet, the recor"s sho$s the contrary! In fact, it too( plaintiff fie
%onths later to "o it an" surprisingly in ti%e for the opening actiity 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, haing ta(en his cause to
the O%bu"s%an but the sa%e $as "is%isse" for being bereft of propriety! If eer he suffere" "a%ages in the
construction of his ne$ coc(pit in 7intuan, it $as his fault for not EsicF cautious enough to inest 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 seeral years, he stan"s to be benefite" or inBure" by the court's Bu"g%ent! The RTC neertheless
"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 ei"ence to proe 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 $as neer con"ucte"!
In its assaile" )uly *+, *,,- Decision,
**
the C/ stresse" that "ue process "oes not necessarily entail a full2blo$n
trial, an" in petitioner's case, he $as clearly gien all the opportunities to be hear"! 8oreoer, the C/ foun" no
grae 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 irreleant!
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 $as not een a participant in the /ugust *-, *,,5 bi""ing! Therefore, the
petitioner, haing no personality to sue has no cause of action against the "efen"ants! > > >
*5
Cence, the C/ "ispose" of the petition as follo$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 Ciil 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 haing 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 resole" 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 eery 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 aails 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 inole", 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 hae 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 een a participant! Contrary to petitioner's clai% that )ose $as his representatie, recor"s
sho$ that )ose acte" in his personal capacity $hen he applie" to be one of the bi""ers of the coc(pit franchise!
5.

Neer $as it sho$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 $oul" hae been a$ar"e" in his na%e an" not in faor 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 *, *,,-, respectiely, are /FFIR8#D!
SO OR3ERE3.
MARIANO C. 3E" CASTI""O
/ssociate )ustice