G.R. No. 72969-70 - Philippine Gamefowl Commission vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

The case arises from a jurisdictional conflict between the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC) and the municipal government of Bogo, Cebu.
The main parties are petitioners Philippine Gamefowl Commission and Hee Acusar, and respondents including the Intermediate Appellate Court, Mayor Celestino E. Martinez, Jr., the Sangguniang Bayan of Bogo, and Santiago Sevilla.

Hee Acusar operated the lone cockpit in Bogo but was ordered to relocate it pursuant to P.D. No. 449 (the Cockfighting Law of 1974) because it was situated in a tertiary commercial zone, which is a prohibited area.
The relocation deadline was extended to June 11, 1980 by P.D. 1535, but Acusar failed to comply. Consequently, the Philippine Constabulary treated the cockpit as phased out.
A petition to compel the municipal mayor to issue Acusar a permit was earlier rejected based on the assertion that Acusar had waived his right to renewal by failing to relocate.

Santiago Sevilla was granted a cockpit license by Mayor Martinez on July 24, 1980, issued through the authority of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bogo and approved by the PC Regional Command 7, as required by law.
Given that only one cockpit is legally allowed in municipalities with populations not exceeding 100,000, Acusar initiated proceedings to revoke Sevilla’s license.
Acusar’s actions were rejected first before PC Regional Command 7 and subsequently by the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
Acusar’s petition for certiorari challenging the decision of the lower court was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Despite earlier setbacks, Acusar sought the intervention of the PGC to renew his cockpit license and cancel Sevilla’s license, filing what was docketed as PGC Case No. 10.
The PGC initially issued an interlocutory order on August 16, 1984, temporarily allowing Acusar to operate his cockpit.
This interlocutory order was subsequently challenged in separate actions by Sevilla and the municipal government.
The Intermediate Appellate Court intervened by temporarily restraining both the enforcement of the PGC order and the actions taken in the Court of First Instance.

On December 6, 1984, the Philippine Gamefowl Commission issued its resolution on the merits, ordering:

The municipal officials, under Mayor Martinez and the Sangguniang Bayan, to issue the necessary permit in favor of Hee Acusar; and
The cancellation and/or revocation of the permit already granted in favor of Santiago Sevilla.

The resolution further mandated the issuance of a Registration Certificate to Acusar for 1984 and the revocation of Sevilla’s Registration Certificate.
This resolution was later declared null and void by the Intermediate Court of Appeals, giving rise to a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The powers of the PGC are delineated in P.D. 1802, which authorizes it to promulgate rules and issue licenses for international cockfighting derbies, and to revise license fee rates.
Municipal mayors and the Sangguniang Bayan, under P.D. 1802 as amended by P.D. 1802-A and the Local Government Code, have the primary authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting within their jurisdiction, subject to the PGC’s guidelines and review.
The legal discussion involves the limits of powers between municipal control (with discretion and primary authority) and PGC’s role (as supervisory and review authority).

Whether the Philippine Gamefowl Commission has the authority to usurp the licensing power of the municipal government conferred under the Local Government Code, P.D. 1802, and P.D. 1802-A.
Whether the PGC’s action in replacing the municipal decision on the cockpit license amounted to an improper exercise of power, thereby interfering with local autonomy.

Whether Hee Acusar’s failure to relocate his cockpit, despite the extension granted under P.D. 1535, legally caused him to forfeit his rights to a permit or renewal under existing laws (including the prior-operator rule).
Whether the factual findings regarding the location of Acusar’s cockpit (proximity to a Roman Catholic church, educational institutions, residential areas, and a public market) justify its classification as phased out.

Whether the PGC’s authority is limited to supervising and reviewing municipal decisions, or if it has the power to substitute its own discretion for that of municipal authorities absent a grave abuse of discretion.