G.R. No. L-12520; January 31, 1959
Seismundo Ramos, petitioner-appellee, vs. The Municipal Council of Daet, et al., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Seismundo Ramos operated the “Riverside Cabaret” on Salcedo Street, Daet. On September 6, 1954, local authorities ordered its closure for violating Republic Act No. 979 , which prohibited cabarets within 500 meters of any church or hospital, as the cabaret was 183 meters from a Roman Catholic church and about 150 meters from a hospital. Ramos contested this closure through a petition for declaratory relief and mandamus, but it was denied on January 6, 1955. Subsequently, in February 1955, Ramos transferred his cabaret to Barrio Tagas, Daet. On May 17, 1955, Republic Act No. 1224 was enacted, prohibiting cabarets within 200 meters of churches and hospitals but containing a proviso that it “shall not apply… to any establishment already in operation when Republic Act Numbered Nine hundred seventy-nine took effect.” Claiming this proviso gave him the right to resume operations at the original Salcedo Street site, Ramos requested a permit from the municipal authorities. His request was denied, leading him to initiate these proceedings. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Ramos, ordering the issuance of a permit. The respondents, represented by the Provincial Fiscal, appealed.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 1224 granted Seismundo Ramos the right to re-open his Riverside Cabaret at its former site on Salcedo Street, which had been lawfully closed for violating the distance restrictions under Republic Act No. 979 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and denied Ramos’s petition. The Court held that the final proviso in Republic Act No. 1224 , which exempts establishments already in operation when R.A. No. 979 took effect, did not grant Ramos the right to re-open his previously closed cabaret. The proviso merely meant that the new provisions and restrictions of R.A. No. 1224 would not apply to such establishments; instead, they would continue to be governed by R.A. No. 979 . It did not legalize establishments that were illegally operating under R.A. No. 979 or exempt them from its regulations. The closure of Ramos’s cabaret in 1954 was legal and upheld by the courts. The subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 1224 did not retroactively render that prior lawful suppression illegal. The privilege under the proviso, if any, is the privilege to continue operating, not to re-open after lawful closure. Since Ramos’s cabaret had been lawfully closed and he had even transferred his business, his petition was effectively a request to establish a new cabaret, which would be governed by the 200-meter restriction in R.A. No. 1224 . Therefore, the municipal authorities correctly denied his permit.