Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Manila Jockey Club V GAB

    Uploaded by

    Sjaney
    The Manila Jockey Club protested when the Games and Amusement Board reduced the number of racing days assigned to private entities by six in order to accommodate an increase in sweepstakes races mandated by a new law. The Court ruled that the Manila Jockey Club had no vested right to unreserved racing days, as their permission to hold races on those days could be revoked by the Board. When a new law increased sweepstakes races without specifying dates, the Board properly adjusted the racing calendar to comply with the law by reducing private entities' unreserved days. The Court also discussed that in interpreting statutes, the focus is on the meaning expressed in the language used, not internal intentions of drafters or legislators.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manila Jockey Club V GAB

    Uploaded by

    Sjaney
    2K views2 pages
    The Manila Jockey Club protested when the Games and Amusement Board reduced the number of racing days assigned to private entities by six in order to accommodate an increase in sweepstakes races mandated by a new law. The Court ruled that the Manila Jockey Club had no vested right to unreserved racing days, as their permission to hold races on those days could be revoked by the Board. When a new law increased sweepstakes races without specifying dates, the Board properly adjusted the racing calendar to comply with the law by reducing private entities' unreserved days. The Court also discussed that in interpreting statutes, the focus is on the meaning expressed in the language used, not internal intentions of drafters or legislators.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Manila Jockey Club v GAB

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Manila Jockey Club protested when the Games and Amusement Board reduced the number of racing days assigned to private entities by six in order to accommodate an increase in sweepstakes races mandated by a new law. The Court ruled that the Manila Jockey Club had no vested right to unreserved racing days, as their permission to hold races on those days could be revoked by the Board. When a new law increased sweepstakes races without specifying dates, the Board properly adjusted the racing calendar to comply with the law by reducing private entities' unreserved days. The Court also discussed that in interpreting statutes, the focus is on the meaning expressed in the language used, not internal intentions of drafters or legislators.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Manila Jockey Club V GAB

    Uploaded by

    Sjaney
    The Manila Jockey Club protested when the Games and Amusement Board reduced the number of racing days assigned to private entities by six in order to accommodate an increase in sweepstakes races mandated by a new law. The Court ruled that the Manila Jockey Club had no vested right to unreserved racing days, as their permission to hold races on those days could be revoked by the Board. When a new law increased sweepstakes races without specifying dates, the Board properly adjusted the racing calendar to comply with the law by reducing private entities' unreserved days. The Court also discussed that in interpreting statutes, the focus is on the meaning expressed in the language used, not internal intentions of drafters or legislators.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Manila Jockey Club v.

    Games and Amusement Board


    [G.R. No. L-12727. February 29, 1960.]

    BARRERA, J:

    Principle: Usage

    Facts:
    Section 4 of Republic Act No. 309, as amended by Republic Act no. 983, specifically
    reserved 23 Sundays and 16 Saturdays for the Philippine Anti-Tuberculosis Society, the White
    Cross, Inc. and the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, and 12 Saturdays to the President for
    other charitable, relief or civic purposes. The remaining racing days were assigned to private
    individuals and entities duly licensed by the Games and Amusements Board, like the appellants.
    When Republic Act No. 1502 increased the sweepstakes draw and races to twelve but without
    specifying the days on which they are to be run, the Games and Amusement Board resolved to
    reduce the number of racing days assigned to private individuals and entities by six. Appellants
    protested, contending that the said increase should be taken from the Saturdays reserved to the
    President, or should be assigned to any other day of the week besides Sunday, Saturday, and legal
    holiday.

    Issue:
    1. Whether or not the petitioner has a vested right to the unreserved Sundays?

    Ruling:
    Appellants have no vested right to the unreserved racing days because their holding of
    races on those days is merely permissive, subject to the licensing and determination by the Games
    and Amusements Board. When, therefore, Republic Act No. 1502 increased by six the sweepstakes
    draw and races but without specifying the days for holding them, the Board had no alternative
    except to make room for the additional races from among the only available racing days unreserved
    by the law.
    In the interpretation of a legal document, especially a statute, unlike in the interpretation of
    an ordinary written document, it is not enough to obtain information to the intention or meaning
    of the author or authors, but also to see whether the intention or meaning has been expressed in
    such a way as to give it legal effect and validity. In short, the purpose of the inquiry, is not only to
    know what the author meant by the language he used, but also to see that the language used
    sufficiently expresses that meaning. The legal act, so to speak, is made up of two elements — an
    internal and an external one; it originates in intention and is perfected by expression. Failure of the
    latter may defeat the former. The following, taken from 59 Corpus Juris 1017, is in line with this
    theory:
    "The intention of the legislature to which effect must be given is that expressed in the
    statute and the courts will not inquire into the motives which influence the legislature, or individual
    members, in voting for its passage; nor indeed as to the intention of the draftsman, or the
    legislature, so far as it has been expressed in the act. So, in ascertaining the meaning of a statute
    the court will not be governed or influenced by the views or opinions of any or all members of the
    legislature or its legislative committees or any other persons."

    Case digest by: Rain Paul G. Corotan

    You might also like