G.R. No. L-53790 and L-53972, October 23, 1981
ONE HEART SPORTING CLUB, INC., et al., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE DIPOLOG COLISEUM, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Presidential Decree No. 449 (1974) required existing cockpits located within prohibited areas (e.g., near residential zones) to relocate within three years. Respondent Dipolog Coliseum, Inc., operated a cockpit in Dipolog City within a prohibited area. The relocation period was extended twice: first by P.D. 1140 until May 9, 1978, and subsequently by P.D. 1535, promulgated on June 11, 1978, which granted a final two-year extension until June 11, 1980. Unaware of this latest decree, petitioner One Heart Sporting Club, Inc., after securing a mayor’s permit and PC approval in September 1978, constructed and inaugurated a new cockpit at a permissible site. Upon learning of P.D. 1535, Dipolog Coliseum sought to resume operations under the new extension. The PC Provincial Commander denied its permit application, citing P.D. 449 and P.D. 1535, which allowed only one cockpit per city, and noting the Sporting Club’s prior authorization.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing Dipolog Coliseum to resume and operate its cockpit until June 11, 1980, despite the prior permit issued to One Heart Sporting Club and the statutory limit of one cockpit per city.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centered on the supremacy and retroactive effect of P.D. 1535. The decree, promulgated on June 11, 1978, expressly extended the relocation deadline for existing cockpits and repealed all inconsistent laws, orders, and regulations. Although the Sporting Club secured its permit and constructed its cockpit in good faith after June 11, 1978, its permit was deemed superseded by the later decree, which effectively restored Dipolog Coliseum’s right to operate until the new deadline. The principle of “ignorantia legis non excusat” applied; the Sporting Club’s lack of knowledge of P.D. 1535 did not excuse it from the law’s effects. The statutory limit of one cockpit per city under P.D. 1535 did not automatically favor the Sporting Club, as the decree’s primary intent was to grant a clear extension to existing operators like Dipolog Coliseum. The Court also rejected procedural objections, holding that the question was purely legal, thus exempting Dipolog Coliseum from exhausting administrative remedies, and that petitioners voluntarily submitted to the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction. The equitable resolution allowed Dipolog Coliseum a six-month period from notice to relocate its cockpit to a permissible area.