GR L 9298; (August, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9298; August 11, 1955
RODRIGUEZ AND RODRIGUEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SOTERO BALUYOT, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiff partnership, owner and licensed operator of a “bowling alley and recreational establishment” on N. Domingo St. in San Juan, Rizal, was required in January 1950 by the municipal mayor, acting on orders from the Secretary of the Interior, to close the establishment. This order was based on Executive Order No. 327, issued under the authority of Commonwealth Act No. 601 , which prohibited the operation of bowling alleys within 200 lineal meters from certain public places, including public parks and schools. The plaintiff’s establishment was located 10.97 meters from the Pinaglabanan Park Monument and 173.38 meters from a public school building. Contesting the validity of both the Executive Order and the Commonwealth Act, the plaintiff petitioned the Court of First Instance of Rizal for a writ of injunction to stop the enforcement of the mayor’s order. The petition was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the plaintiff’s bowling alley establishment is subject to closure under the regulatory provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 601 and Executive Order No. 327, in light of subsequent legislation, specifically Republic Act No. 979 and its amendment, Republic Act No. 1224 .
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and granted the writ of injunction. The Court held that Commonwealth Act No. 601 and Executive Order No. 327 issued thereunder were repealed by Republic Act No. 979 , which transferred the regulatory power over bowling alleys and similar establishments to municipal councils. Republic Act No. 979 was subsequently amended by Republic Act No. 1224 . Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224 prescribes new distance norms for ordinances regulating such amusement places but explicitly provides that such ordinances shall not apply to establishments already licensed and operating at the time of the ordinance’s enactment. Furthermore, the law states it shall not apply to any establishment already in operation when Republic Act No. 979 took effect on May 21, 1954. Since the plaintiff’s establishment was already in operation when Republic Act No. 979 took effect, it is not subject to the new distance norms under Republic Act No. 1224 or any ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Therefore, the closure order based on the repealed Commonwealth Act No. 601 and Executive Order No. 327 was invalid.