G.R. No. L-71313 - Deang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Petitioner Roderico M. Deang is the owner of a cockpit known as "Angeles Amusement Center" located at Barrio Claro M. Recto, Angeles City, Pampanga.
The cockpit was purchased in 1977 from Ponciano Dayrit, who had operated it since 1945.
From the time of purchase, the petitioner was annually granted a license to operate the cockpit up to 1980.

In 1979, Mabuhay Consolidated Incorporated, a cockpit operator based in San Fernando, Pampanga, initiated a case (Civil Case No. 5256) before the then Court of First Instance of Pampanga.
The suit questioned the continued operation of several cockpits, including the Angeles Amusement Center, on the ground of their improper locations.
The City of Angeles, represented by then Mayor Rafael Lazatin, intervened by joining as a party in the suit.
Shortly after, on December 5, 1979, a joint motion to dismiss was filed by the parties, seeking dismissal of the complaint, counterclaim, and intervention “without prejudice” for the future cause of action of the intervenor.
The joint motion was granted on December 6, 1979, resulting in the dismissal of the case; thereafter, the cockpit resumed its operations.

In 1981, when petitioner Deang applied for the renewal of the cockpit’s operational permit, the new mayor, Francisco G. Nepomuceno, refused to grant the permit.
Mayor Nepomuceno’s refusal was based on:

The alleged improper location of the cockpit, being near two schools, a church, and a public building.
The finding that the cockpit encroached on a public street, namely, C. Pineda Street.

The petitioner then sought relief by filing a petition for review with the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC).

On February 1, 1983, the PGC determined that the cockpit’s location did not violate zoning regulations.
The Commission, however, ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the issue of encroachment on a public street, as that matter belonged to the regular courts.
Resolving the petition, the PGC ordered Mayor Nepomuceno to issue the required permit.
In response, the mayor appealed the PGC’s resolution to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals).

On May 2, 1985, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the PGC’s resolution and dismissed the petition.
The dismissal was premised on the finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his cockpit was legally occupying the portion of C. Pineda Street.
The court emphasized that any challenge to the determination regarding the occupation of the street should be pursued in the regular courts, thereby preserving their jurisdiction.
The petitioner later filed a motion for reconsideration, contending:

That the issue of encroachment was res judicata based on the dismissal in Civil Case No. 5256.
That the dismissal order’s “without prejudice” clause pertained only to future causes of action and not to the issues already resolved.
That a property exchange had taken place, allegedly nullifying the public street status of the occupied area.

On June 26, 1985, the appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration on the grounds that:

The dismissal in Civil Case No. 5256 was without prejudice regarding the intervenor’s future claims.
The petitioner’s assertion regarding the property exchange required substantiation by evidence in a full-blown hearing initiated in the lower courts.

Consequently, the petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari on August 14, 1985.

Whether the dismissal order in Civil Case No. 5256, which was rendered “without prejudice” regarding the intervenor’s future cause of action, constitutes a final judgment barring the present petition.
Whether the issue of encroachment on a public street has already been adjudicated and is therefore res judicata.

Whether the Philippine Gamefowl Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the issuance of a permit for an ordinary cockpit, a power primarily vested in the municipal mayor.
Whether the matter of alleged encroachment by the petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts rather than that of the PGC.

Whether the petitioner’s contentions regarding the alleged property exchange and reclassification of the public street are legally tenable without substantive evidence.
Whether the continuous occupation of the public street justifies the petitioner’s claim that the encroachment issue is not merely a future cause of action.