Adlawan v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two cockpits, Minglanilla Junior Coliseum (Coliseum) and Gallera Bagong Lipunan (Gallera), operated in Minglanilla, Cebu. The Coliseum was established in 1955 and located in the poblacion, while the Gallera was established in 1967 and located in a barrio. With the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 449 (Cockfighting Law of 1974), which provided for a "one cockpit for every municipality" rule, a controversy arose regarding which cockpit should operate. Procedural History: The Philippine Constabulary initially upheld the Coliseum as the municipal cockpit. However, the Municipal Council of Minglanilla, citing Republic Act No. 1224 and a Provincial Circular, recommended the Gallera as the municipal cockpit, finding the Coliseum to be too close to public buildings. Private respondents, owners of the Coliseum, filed a declaratory relief with injunction case. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Coliseum, ordering the issuance of a license to the Coliseum, the closure of the Gallera, and making the preliminary injunction permanent. The owner of the Gallera appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The Petition: During the appeal, the Gallera was sold to petitioner Georgia Adlawan. The original owner moved to withdraw the appeal, which the IAC granted, leading to an entry of judgment. Adlawan sought reconsideration, claiming she was the real party in interest, but the IAC denied it. The RTC ordered the execution of its decision. The Philippine Gamefowl Commission later ordered the cancellation of the Gallera's registration and approved the Coliseum's registration. Petitioners filed a petition with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the RTC decision and IAC resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the decision of the Regional Trial Court, declaring the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum as the municipal cockpit and ordering the closure of Gallera Bagong Lipunan, is null and void for allegedly disregarding existing laws. Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 4 of Minglanilla, fixing a 50-meter distance for cockpits from public buildings, could be validly applied to the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum, which was established prior to the ordinance; and whether Presidential Decree No. 449 and other related laws mandated a specific distance for cockpits from public buildings, overriding local ordinances. Whether the Municipal Council of Minglanilla acted within its authority in passing resolutions recommending the Gallera as the municipal cockpit; and on the nature of declaratory relief. On the equities of the case.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED, and the challenged decision and resolution are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the RTC decision and the application of laws: The Court affirmed the RTC decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion or flaw in the enactment of Municipal Ordinance No. 4. The Court clarified that while Republic Act No. 1224 gave municipal councils discretion to fix distances for cockpits, it specifically prohibited the retroactive application of such ordinances to cockpits already licensed and operating at the time of their enactment. Since the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum was established in 1955 and Municipal Ordinance No. 4 was passed in 1969, the ordinance could not prejudice the Coliseum's operation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Coliseum was certified by the Provincial Engineer to be more than the required 50 lineal meters from public buildings. On mandatory distance limits under PD 449 and the application of Municipal Ordinance No. 4: The Court found that Presidential Decree No. 449 (Cockfighting Law) and Presidential Decree No. 1802 did not impose a mandatory delimitation on the distance of cockpits from public buildings, except in the absence of a local ordinance. Section 5(c) of PD 449 states that cockpits shall be operated within appropriate areas prescribed by zoning laws or ordinances, and in their absence, local executives must ensure cockpits are not constructed near residential or commercial areas, hospitals, schools, churches, or other public buildings. This provision upholds the discretionary power of local officials, which was exercised through Municipal Ordinance No. 4. On the authority of the Municipal Council and the nature of declaratory relief: The Court held that Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 449 empowered municipal mayors to issue licenses for cockpit operations, subject to approval and supervision. The municipal council's duty is to ratify the mayor's decision, not to pass upon the licensability of a cockpit on its own initiative. The Court found Resolution No. 40, which recommended the Gallera as the legal municipal cockpit, to be an ultra vires act as it bypassed the mayor's authority and was passed without his participation, rendering it without binding effect. While the case was initiated as a petition for declaratory relief, which typically does not entail executory processes, the Court applied the rule that if the allegations are sufficient for specific performance or recovery of property, and the defendant does not challenge the remedy, the court can grant affirmative relief warranted by the evidence. The RTC's judgment, which included affirmative reliefs, was deemed valid under this principle. On the equities of the case: The Court considered the equities, noting that the Coliseum enjoyed the advantage of seniority, having been in operation since 1955 compared to the Gallera's establishment in 1967. The Coliseum's location in the poblacion also favored it over the Gallera's barrio location. These factors, along with the legal considerations, established the Coliseum's right to be considered the municipal cockpit.
Main Doctrine
The discretionary power of local government units to regulate cockpit operations, including the determination of their location relative to public buildings, is upheld, and municipal ordinances fixing distances cannot be retroactively applied to existing licensed cockpits.