G.R. No. L-27277 - Isip vs. Gonzales

On April 1, 1956, the Municipal Council of Makati, Rizal, approved Vicente Martelino’s application to reopen the Tropical Night Spot cabaret located on Constancia Street via Resolution No. 94.
Following the resolution, the Municipal Mayor, Maximo Estrella, issued the corresponding permit to Martelino.

On January 22, 1957, the Executive Secretary, acting through the Provincial Governor of Rizal, sent a communication to Mayor Estrella informing him that records in the Secretary’s office showed two buildings being used as school facilities were within 200 meters of the cabaret.
It was pointed out that operating the cabaret in such proximity to these educational establishments would contravene Republic Act No. 1224.
The mayor was enjoined to revoke the permit previously issued to Martelino.

In response to the Executive Secretary’s communication, the mayor requested reconsideration, citing an investigation by a local municipal council committee that indicated the nearby classroom annex had been relocated to a distant barrio.
However, a later survey conducted by the Provincial Governor’s office established the cabaret’s proximity as follows:

Based on these findings, the mayor was again enjoined to comply with the directive, and he subsequently ordered Martelino to close the cabaret.

On April 2, 1957, rather than comply with the closure order, Martelino filed a petition for prohibition with a request for a preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
The petition sought the nullification of Mayor Estrella’s order on the ground that it was issued without or in excess of his authority or with grave abuse of discretion.

The Court of First Instance, considering the evidence, found that despite the absence of a school within 200 meters, the existence of two chapels in such proximity violated Republic Act No. 1224.
Consequently, the court dismissed Martelino’s petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction.
Martelino appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court, noting that the record contained a clear recital of the pertinent facts.
The case turned on the interpretation of Section 1 of Republic Act 938 (as amended by Republic Acts 979 and 1224), which regulates the establishment of amusement venues in relation to nearby public buildings, schools, hospitals, and churches.

Whether the two chapels located within 200 meters of the cabaret can be considered “churches” within the meaning of Section 1 of Republic Act 938, as amended.

Vicente Martelino contended that the statutory term “churches” should not include “chapels.”
He relied on the principle of statutory construction (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) asserting that because the law specifically mentions “churches” and not “chapels,” chapels should be excluded.
Martelino further argued that a distinction exists between a “church” and a “chapel” in terms of size, function, or hierarchical status.

The contention required a determination of whether the essential attributes of religious worship and regularity in service, inherent in “churches,” would extend to chapels.