G.R. No. L-30456 July 30, 1982
VIRGILIO S. VELAZCO and THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CAVITE, petitioners, vs. EMILIA S. BLAS, CONRADO SAYAS and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, BRANCH IV, TAGAYTAY CITY, respondents.

FACTS

The Municipal Council of Silang, Cavite, authorized respondent Emilia S. Blas to operate a cinema via Resolution No. 3, series of 1968, with an express prohibition against loudspeakers making sound audible outside the theater. Blas commenced construction. Subsequently, the Provincial Board of Cavite, upon representations by petitioner Dr. Virgilio S. Velazco, whose clinic was nearby, approved Resolution No. 68, declaring the municipal resolution null and void for allegedly contravening Republic Act No. 1224 . The Provincial Board later passed Resolution No. 80 advising the Mayor to stop the construction.
Dr. Velazco filed an action in the Court of First Instance to declare the cinema’s operation illegal and to stop its construction, citing nuisance from construction noise and violation of R.A. No. 1224 . The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding the cinema’s operation did not contravene R.A. No. 1224 , the Provincial Board’s resolution was ultra vires, and the construction noise was not a nuisance. Petitioners appealed, raising purely questions of law.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether a cinema falls within the prohibition of R.A. No. 1224 regarding places of amusement near certain institutions; (2) whether the Provincial Board acted within its authority in annulling the municipal resolution; and (3) whether Blas was required to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing the Board’s action to the Office of the President.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court. On the first issue, the Court held that a cinema is not among the “similar places of amusement” enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 1224 , which regulates night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools, cockpits, bars, saloons, bowling alleys, and billiard pools. The law’s intent is to regulate establishments known for boisterous behavior and noisy activities detrimental to the quiet atmosphere around public buildings, schools, hospitals, and churches. A movie theater lacks these characteristics; thus, extending the law by analogy to include it would be an unreasonable legislative extension.
On the second and third issues, the Court ruled that Provincial Board Resolution No. 68 was ultra vires and null and void. Under Section 2233 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Provincial Board is authorized to declare a municipal resolution invalid only if it finds the resolution “beyond the powers conferred upon the council.” The Board’s declaration here was based on a perceived conflict with R.A. No. 1224 —a substantive legal determination of contravention, not a finding that the municipal council exceeded its grant of powers. The Board thus acted beyond its statutory authority. Consequently, Blas was not required to exhaust the administrative remedy of appealing to the Office of the President, as the Board’s void act created no obligation to do so. The municipal resolution remained valid by operation of law.