Facts:

In the case of Georgia Adlawan, Owner, Ramon Villordon and Manuel Villordon, shareholders and operators/managers of Gallera Bagong Lipunan, vs. The Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, The Hon. Regional Trial Court, Branch XIII, Cebu City, The Philippine Gamefowl Commission, Nicolas Enad, Abelardo Larumbe, and Martinian de la Calsada, who are all shareholders of the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum. This case was filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines under G.R. No. 73022 on February 9, 1989.

Before martial law was declared, two licensed cockpits operated in Minglanilla, Cebu—namely, the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum, established in July 1955, and the Gallera Bagong Lipunan, which opened in 1967. The controversy arose following Presidential Decree No. 449, which stipulated that there should be only one cockpit allowed to operate per municipality. Following a radio message from the Cebu Provincial Command of the Philippine Constabulary on November 27, 1972, the municipal govern

...

Facts:

Existence and Operation of Cockpits

• Two licensed cockpits were operating in Minglanilla, Cebu before martial law:
• The Minglanilla Junior Coliseum, in operation since July 1955, located in the poblacion, owned and managed by the private respondents.
• The Gallera Bagong Lipunan (also known as Bag-Ong Bulangan and later La Gallera de Minglanilla), established in 1967 in Barrio Calajo-an, initially operated by Catalino Villaflor and eventually managed by the petitioners.
• Both cockpits were subject to existing licensing arrangements and local ordinances governing cockfighting.

Policy Framework and Statutory Background

• With the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 449 (the Cockfighting Law of 1974), a “one cockpit per municipality” rule was imposed.
• The receipt of a directive (via radio message on November 27, 1972) by the Office of the Mayor of Minglanilla from the Philippine Constabulary set the policy:
• Only licensed municipal cockpits were permitted.
• Barrio cockpits were to be disallowed unless certified as the municipal cockpit by the mayor.
• No municipality could operate more than one cockpit.

Initial Administrative and Inter-Agency Determinations

• The Provincial Command decided on December 8, 1972, to recognize the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum as the municipal cockpit.
• The operator of the Gallera appealed the decision, which was redirected to the municipal council for further determination.

Municipal Council Deliberations and Resolutions

• The Committee on Laws and Ordinances of Minglanilla conducted an inquiry:
• It based its recommendation on Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224 (effective May 7, 1955), which vested local councils with regulatory authority over cockpits.
• An Unnumbered Provincial Circular (purportedly issued on January 3, 1969) was also cited to support local discretion in setting distance limitations for cockpits from public structures.
• The committee concluded that, based on the distance requirements, the Coliseum did not meet the necessary criteria while Gallera did.
• Subsequently, Municipal Ordinance No. 4 (adopted on February 9, 1969) fixed a 50-meter distance requirement, and Resolution No. 40, Series of 1973, recommended that the Gallera be certified as the municipal cockpit.

Judicial Proceedings and Controversies

• Aggrieved private respondents (shareholders of the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum) filed an action for declaratory relief with injunction seeking:
• Judicial interpretation of the rights under the applicable laws and ordinances.
• Orders for the issuance of licenses and the closure of the Gallera.
• The trial court rendered a decision:
• Ordering immediate license issuance to petitioners.
• Directing the closure of the Gallera, thereby favoring the continuation of the Coliseum as the municipal cockpit.
• Ma. Luz Rosete Diores, who had acquired Gallera from Catalino Villaflor, appealed the trial court decision.
• During the pendency of the appeal, Diores executed a deed of absolute sale transferring her interest to petitioner Georgia Adlawan.
• Diores later filed a motion to withdraw or dismiss her appeal, which was granted, and the entry of judgment was made on September 13, 1985.
• Subsequent motions and administrative actions:
• On September 19, 1985, petitioner Georgia Adlawan moved for reconsideration, alleging malice and bad faith in the withdrawal of the appeal.
• The trial court ordered a writ of execution on October 14, 1985.
• The Philippine Gamefowl Commission passed a resolution (October 10, 1985) ordering the cancellation of Gallera’s registration and approving the registration of the Coliseum.
• Finally, the Intermediate Appellate Court denied the motion for reconsideration on November 27, 1985.

Statutory and Regulatory Context

• Before martial law, the operation of cockpits was governed primarily by Republic Act No. 1224, which granted local councils the power to regulate or prohibit cockpits, including the discretion on location and distance limits.
• Municipal Ordinance No. 4 and subsequent resolutions were enacted under this statutory framework.
• The statutory provision expressly prohibited the retroactive application of any municipal ordinance to adversely affect cockpits already licensed and operating.
• Presidential Decrees No. 449 and No. 1802 further clarified the roles of local executives and the Philippine Gamefowl Commission in the regulation and supervision of cockpits.

Issue:

Validity and Retroactive Application of Municipal Ordinance

• Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 4, established after the operation of the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum, can be retroactively applied to affect previously licensed cockpits.

Distance Requirements and Applicable Standards

• Whether the statutory provisions under Republic Act No. 1224, and later Presidential Decree No. 449, unambiguously require a 200-meter distance from public structures, or if local ordinances (even with a 50-meter limit) suffice.
• Determination of whether the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum and the Gallera comply with the distance criteria as mandated by law and local ordinance.

Authority and Validity of Municipal Deliberations

• Whether the resolution (Resolution No. 40) by the Municipal Council, recommending the Gallera be recognized as the municipal cockpit, was within its legal authority.
• The proper role of the municipal council vis-à-vis the mayor and the Philippine Gamefowl Commission in accrediting a cockpit.

Procedural and Substantive Issues Relating to the Appeal

• Whether the withdrawal of the appeal by Diores was proper, given her subsequent transfer of interest to petitioner Georgia Adlawan.
• The effect of the prior entry of judgment on the petition for reconsideration and the overall resolution of the case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)