GR 73022; (February, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 73022 February 9, 1989
GEORGIA ADLAWAN, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Prior to martial law, two licensed cockpits operated in Minglanilla, Cebu: the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum (Coliseum), existing since 1955 and located in the poblacion, and the Gallera Bagong Lipunan (Gallera), established in 1967 and located in Barrio Calajoan. The controversy arose with the implementation of the “one cockpit per municipality” policy under Presidential Decree No. 449 (Cockfighting Law of 1974). Following a radio message from the Philippine Constabulary enforcing this policy, the Municipal Council had to determine which cockpit would be retained. A committee report, relying on Republic Act No. 1224 and a Provincial Circular, recommended certifying the Gallera as the municipal cockpit, arguing the Coliseum failed to meet distance requirements from public buildings. The Council adopted this via Resolution, prompting the Coliseum’s owners to file an action for declaratory relief.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Coliseum, declaring it the rightful municipal cockpit. The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed the Gallera’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time, leading to an entry of judgment. The Gallera’s owners then filed this petition, seeking to annul the lower courts’ decisions and the entry of judgment.
ISSUE
The primary issue is which cockpit has the legal right to operate as the sole municipal cockpit of Minglanilla under the applicable laws and regulations.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the lower courts. The legal logic centered on the application of the non-retroactivity principle in cockpit licensing laws. Republic Act No. 1224 , the governing law when the Coliseum was established, explicitly prohibited the retroactive application of any subsequent municipal ordinance to a licensed cockpit already operating at the time of the ordinance’s enactment. The Coliseum was licensed and operating since 1955. The Municipal Ordinance No. 4 (1969) and the 1969 Provincial Circular, which imposed stricter distance limits, could not be applied retroactively to disqualify the Coliseum. Its prior lawful existence conferred a vested right to continue operations. Furthermore, the Court found the Coliseum’s location in the poblacion, as opposed to the Gallera’s barrio site, historically and traditionally indicative of a municipal cockpit’s proper situs. The Court also addressed the procedural aspect, noting that while the action was for declaratory relief, the allegations and evidence warranted the affirmative relief granted by the trial court. The dismissal of the appeal by the Intermediate Appellate Court for procedural default was likewise upheld.