Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12520)
Facts:
- Seismundo Ramos, a cabaret owner, challenges the closure of his establishment by the local authorities in Daet, Philippines.
- The closure was ordered on September 6, 1954, because the cabaret violated a law that prohibited the establishment of amusement places within a certain distance from public buildings, schools, hospitals, and churches.
- The cabaret on Salcedo Street, where Ramos' establishment was located, stood 183 meters from the Roman Catholic church and about 150 meters from Briola's Hospital.
- Ramos appealed to the court of first instance of Camarines Norte to issue him a permit to re-open his cabaret at its old site.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled against Ramos and denied his petition to re-open his cabaret.
- The court held that the closure of the cabaret was legal and that the repeal of a law does not render previous...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court based its decision on the principle of statutory construction.
- The court stated that the repeal of a law does not render illegal whatever was done or ordered pursuant to its provisions.
- In this case, the closure of Ramos' cabaret was ordered in accordance with the law that prohibited the establishment of amusement places within a certain distance from public buildings, schools, hospitals, and churches.
- Even if the law was later amended to remove the grounds for closure, the court held that the amendment...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12520)
Facts:
The case of Ramos v. Municipal Council of Daet involves the petitioner, Seismundo Ramos, who challenged the closure of his cabaret by the local authorities. The cabaret, located on Salcedo Street, was ordered closed on September 6, 1954, for violating Republic Act No. 979, which prohibited the operation of cabarets within 500 meters of any church or hospital. Ramos contested the closure through a petition for declaratory relief and mandamus, but his petition was denied. He then transferred his amusement place to Barrio Tagas, Daet.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether Republic Act No. 1224 allowed Ramos to reopen his cabaret at its former site.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that Ramos was not entitled to reopen his cabaret at its former site. The closure of the cabaret was legal, and the amendment of the law did not retroactively render the previous closure illegal.
Ratio:
The court held that Republic Act No. 1224 did not repeal Rep...