- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 20 Jul 1994 · read from the court record
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- G.R. No. 111097
- Judge
- Cruz, J.
- Filed
- 1993
- Type
- Constitutional challenge, licensing and administrative court cases
- Money
- costs against petitioners
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
Cagayan de Oro tried to stop a PAGCOR casino with two ordinances; the Court of Appeals voided them and on 20 July 1994 the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Local Government Code lets cities suppress only gambling prohibited by law and that PD 1869 was neither repealed nor modified. The case fixes PAGCOR's supremacy over local anti-casino measures.
What this case is about
Magtajas and City of Cagayan de Oro v. Pryce Properties Corporation and PAGCOR, G.R. No. 111097, is a constitutional case before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, sitting En Banc.
It asked whether a city can stop a casino that the national gaming corporation backs. It is one of the licensing and administrative court cases on this site.
Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas and the City of Cagayan de Oro adopted City Ordinance 3353 on 7 December 1992 and Ordinance 3375-93 on 4 January 1993. Both prohibited casino operation.
Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc. and the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) challenged them, and the legal clash was between the Local Government Code and Presidential Decree 1869 (PD 1869).
Who is covered
The ruling concerns the Philippine cities and local governments that try to ban casinos, and PAGCOR as the national body whose casinos they target. It is not a class case and it has no class of players.
The parties were the mayor and the city on one side and Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc. and PAGCOR on the other. The case was filed in 1993.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It was a dispute between a city and a gaming corporation over the validity of two ordinances, and the record shows no fund, no settlement and no consumer claim process.
The only money in the record is costs, which the Court assessed against the petitioners (the mayor and the city).
What the court decided
The Court of Appeals had voided the two ordinances. On 20 July 1994 the Supreme Court, En Banc, in an opinion by Cruz, J., denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The ordinances stayed void.
The Court held that the Local Government Code lets cities suppress only gambling that the law prohibits. It also held that PD 1869 was neither repealed nor modified by that code. Pryce Properties Corporation was dropped as a respondent on 13 June 1994, before the decision.
As of 14 November 2026 the record shows the case as decided. It shows no later hearing or step.
Why it matters
The decision is a precedent. It fixes PAGCOR's supremacy over local anti-casino measures in the Philippines: the Local Government Code does not let a city suppress gambling the law does not prohibit.
Other disputes over who may license, run or tax gambling are collected under licensing and administrative court cases.
Questions people ask
Can a Philippine city ban a casino that PAGCOR runs?
Not through ordinances like these. In G.R. No. 111097 the Supreme Court held on 20 July 1994 that the Local Government Code lets cities suppress only gambling prohibited by law, and that PD 1869 was not repealed or modified.
What happened to the two Cagayan de Oro ordinances?
The Court of Appeals voided City Ordinances 3353 and 3375-93, and the Supreme Court affirmed that result on 20 July 1994. Both ordinances are void, so they cannot be enforced.
Who paid the costs?
The petitioners did. The decision ruled costs against Mayor Magtajas and the City of Cagayan de Oro. The record gives no amount.
Related cases
- Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 91649: an earlier challenge to PAGCOR that was dismissed.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas and the City of Cagayan de Oro
| Defendants | Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc.; Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation |
|---|---|
| Judge | Cruz, J. |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026. The court record shows costs against petitioners.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Filed |
| 20 Jul 1994 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: lawphil.net
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994, petition denied, ordinances void; G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994, Cruz J, En Banc, petition denied, CA affirmed, costs against petitioners; Pryce dropped as respondent 13 June 1994 | lawphil.net | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
1 case in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Basco v PAGCOR (PAGCOR charter upheld) | Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc | Dismissed |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.