By Ferdinand Fabella

A bingo operator in Taguig City has gone to court asking for the resumption of its venture but authorities insist the franchise to operate had expired last year.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, Scratch Zone Inc. argued that the Business Permit and Licensing Office has no power to close its shop.

?The enforcement of the closure order by respondent will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage to the business if the respondent is permitted to continue with the closure of petitioner?s establishment,? said private counsel Nestor Ricolcol in a petition filed before Taguig Regional Trial Court Branch 271.

Named respondent in the case were city executives led by Jeffe Minglana, BPLO chief.

Scratch Zone, a gaming center at the Market! Market! Mall at The Fort, filed the case after Minglana served last Friday a closure order, noting that the 2005 franchise given by the city council to hold bingo games had lapsed September last year.

In an interview, Minglana told Standard Today that he was enforcing Ordinance 72 Series of 2005 that gave Scratch Zone until Sept. 13, 2008 to hold commercial bingo games.

?We are only implementing the city ordinance,? he noted.

But Ricolcol said the measure had no legal effect because the power of local governments to regulate gambling through franchise, licenses, or permits had been withdrawn.

He cited Presidential Decree 771, issued on Aug. 20, 1975 by the late President Ferdinand Marcos, mandating that permits or franchises to operate, maintain and establish horse and dog race tracks, jai-alai and other forms of gambling would be issued by the national government.

Ricolcol said the firm was authorized to hold bingo games by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. under PD 1869 which ?enabled the Government to regulate and centralize all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law,? among other provisions.

?Undoubtedly, the closure [order] will inevitably result in untold damages and losses of investments and improvements amounting to millions of pesos to the petitioner aside from loss of employment of its 16 employees.?