Martelino v. Estrella
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 1, 1956, Vicente Martelino was granted a permit by the Municipal Mayor of Makati to reopen the Tropical Night Spot cabaret. On January 22, 1957, the Executive Secretary, through the Provincial Governor of Rizal, informed the mayor that the cabaret's operation violated Republic Act No. 1224, as there were buildings used for school purposes within 200 meters. The mayor requested reconsideration, citing an investigation that indicated the classroom annex had been transferred. Subsequently, the governor reiterated the directive, stating a survey found the cabaret to be 191.50 meters from the F. Benitez Elementary School Annex, 37.30 meters from a Catholic Chapel, and 178 meters from an Iglesia ni Kristo chapel. Procedural History: The mayor ordered Martelino to close the cabaret. Martelino filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to nullify the closure order for being issued with grave abuse of discretion. The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed and dissolved the injunction, finding that while no school was within the radius, two chapels were, thus violating Republic Act No. 1224. The Petition: The petitioner appealed the dismissal, arguing that the term 'churches' in Republic Act No. 1224 does not include 'chapels,' based on the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Issue(s)
Whether the two chapels located within a radius of 200 meters from the cabaret can be considered 'churches' within the meaning of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224, as amended. Whether the Mayor acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the closure of the cabaret.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal is affirmed. The petition for prohibition is dismissed, and the preliminary injunction is dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the two chapels can be considered 'churches' within the meaning of Republic Act No. 1224: The Court held that the term 'churches' in Republic Act No. 1224 includes all places suited to regular religious worship. While a chapel may be a subordinate or smaller place of worship, its essential characteristic, like a church, is the devotion of the place to religious services held with regularity. The definition of 'chapel' includes a 'small house or subordinate place of worship' and a 'Christian sanctuary other than a parish or cathedral church.' The two chapels in question, a Catholic chapel and an Iglesia ni Kristo chapel, were found to be intended for the regular holding of religious services. The Iglesia ni Kristo chapel had its own pastor and held services regularly, and the Catholic chapel, despite its humble origins, had been improved and regularly held masses every Sunday and on special occasions. The Court cited Webster's Third International Dictionary and the case of Stubbs v. Texas Liquor Control Board to define a place of worship as a place where persons regularly assemble for worship. The fact that these buildings are called 'chapels' does not alter their nature as places of worship falling under the purview of the law. The Court also referenced Delgado, et al. v. Roque, et al., where a chapel was considered a 'church' within the meaning of the law. On whether the Mayor acted with grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the Mayor acted within his authority and not with grave abuse of discretion. The directive to revoke the permit was based on the finding that the cabaret's operation violated Republic Act No. 1224, specifically the prohibition against establishing such places of amusement within a 200-meter radius of schools and churches. Since the Court determined that the chapels qualified as 'churches' under the law, the Mayor's action in ordering the closure was a lawful exercise of his power to enforce the statute.
Main Doctrine
A chapel, being a place suited to regular religious worship, is considered a 'church' within the meaning of Republic Act No. 1224, which prohibits the establishment of places of amusement within a specified radius from churches.