Deang v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roderico Deang owned and operated the Angeles Amusement Center, a cockpit, which he purchased in 1977 and was annually granted a license to operate until 1980. In 1979, a civil case was filed questioning the operation of several cockpits, including petitioner's, due to improper locations, leading to the City of Angeles intervening. The parties later filed a joint motion to dismiss, which was granted with prejudice regarding the complaint and counterclaim, but without prejudice to the intervenor's future cause of action. In 1981, the new mayor, Francisco Nepomuceno, refused to renew Deang's permit, citing the cockpit's location near schools and a church, and its encroachment on C. Pineda Street. Procedural History: Petitioner Deang petitioned the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC), which ruled that the location did not violate zoning but lacked jurisdiction over the encroachment issue, ordering the mayor to issue the permit. Respondent Mayor Nepomuceno appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which reversed the PGC, dismissing the case and stating the PGC could not pre-empt the jurisdiction of regular courts on the encroachment issue. The IAC denied Deang's motion for reconsideration, holding that the dismissal in the prior civil case was without prejudice to the City's future cause of action and that the alleged property exchange needed substantiation. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the IAC's decision and arguing that the issue of encroachment was res judicata due to the prior dismissal order.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal order in Civil Case No. 5256 constitutes res judicata on the issue of encroachment on C. Pineda Street. Whether the Philippine Gamefowl Commission had the authority to order the Mayor to issue a cockpit permit.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of res judicata: The Court held that for a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case, several requisites must concur, including that it must be a judgment on the merits. In Civil Case No. 5256, the trial court did not rule on the merits; it merely granted a joint motion to dismiss. A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right, not one based on a preliminary or technical point. The dismissal order explicitly stated it was without prejudice to the intervenor's future cause of action, which the Court interpreted to include ongoing issues like encroachment. The Court further noted that the petitioner's occupation of a public street is a continuous act, meaning the cause of action subsists as long as the street is occupied, and requires a showing that the street portion was validly withdrawn from public use and any alleged exchange was legally consummated. Therefore, the prior dismissal did not bar the subsequent consideration of the encroachment issue. On the authority of the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC): The Court clarified the powers vested in the PGC vis-a-vis municipal officials under P.D. 1802, P.D. 1802-A, and the Local Government Code. It held that the municipal mayor, with the Sangguniang Bayan's authorization, has the primary power to issue licenses for ordinary cockpits. The PGC's power is limited to international derbies; for ordinary cockpits, it has only the power of review and supervision, not control. Supervision means overseeing duties, while control involves altering or setting aside subordinate actions. Review is for correction. The Court emphasized that the power of supervision does not allow the PGC to annul acts of the mayor, and any necessary correction must come from the authority exercising control or through the courts. Furthermore, the Local Government Code, effective in 1983, did not confer categorical authority on the PGC to annul licensing and regulation of cockpits by municipal governments. Therefore, the PGC's resolution ordering the mayor to issue a permit was promulgated without proper authority, as it substituted its discretion for that of the municipal authorities.
Main Doctrine
The Philippine Gamefowl Commission's power over ordinary cockpits is limited to supervision and review, not control, and it cannot pre-empt the jurisdiction of regular courts on issues of encroachment on public streets. A dismissal of a case based on a joint motion to dismiss, with specific reservations for future causes of action, does not constitute a judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata.