G.R. No. 73022 - Adlawan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Case Summary (G.R. No. 73022)

Factual Background

The dispute concerned which of two licensed cockpits in Minglanilla, Cebu, should be recognized as the municipal cockpit under the prevailing law limiting cockpits to one per municipality. The Minglanilla Junior Coliseum had operated since 1955 and was located in the poblacion. The Gallera Bagong Lipunan, established in 1967 in Barrio Calajo-an, had changed hands and was later owned and operated by petitioners. The controversy intensified after the promulgation of P.D. 449 which adopted the principle of one cockpit per municipality.

Municipal and Provincial Actions

In November 1972 a radio directive from the Cebu Provincial command of the Philippine Constabulary articulated a policy restricting cockpit operations to one municipal cockpit and disallowing barrio cockpits unless certified by the mayor. The Provincial Command initially upheld the Coliseum as the municipal cockpit in a December 8, 1972 decision. The Municipal Council’s Committee on Laws and Ordinances, however, adopted a report relying on Republic Act No. 1224 and an Unnumbered Provincial Circular, and recommended certification of the Bag-Ong Bulangan (Gallera) as municipal cockpit. The Municipal Council thereafter passed Resolution No. 40 requesting the mayor to issue a certification that Bag-Ong Bulangan was the municipal cockpit.

Trial Court Proceedings

Private respondents Nicolas Enad and Abelardo Larumbe filed a petition for declaratory relief with injunction before the Court of First Instance of Cebu to settle rights under the cockpit laws. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners (private respondents herein), ordering the mayor to issue a license-permit for 1982, directing the Sangguniang Bayan to confirm the permit, ordering the Philippine Gamefowl Commission to register the Coliseum, and ordering the closure of the Gallera. The trial court further declared the writ of preliminary injunction permanent.

Intermediate Appellate Court Proceedings

The owner of Gallera, Ma. Luz Rosete Diores, appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court under CA‑GR UDK No. 4914. During the appeal she executed an absolute deed of sale of the Gallera to petitioner Georgia Adlawan dated July 14, 1984. Diores moved to withdraw and dismiss her appeal on September 12, 1985. The appellate court granted the motion and entered the dismissal on September 13, 1985. Petitioners moved for reconsideration alleging that Diores acted in bad faith because she no longer owned the Gallera at the time she withdrew the appeal. The appellate court denied reconsideration on November 27, 1985 on the ground that entry of judgment had already been made in September.

Subsequent Administrative Acts

Following the dismissal of the appeal and the trial court’s judgment, the Philippine Gamefowl Commission on October 10, 1985 passed a resolution ordering the cancellation of the registration certificate of Gallera and approving registration of the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum. The Commission later granted an interlocutory order in 1986 allowing Gallera to operate, but the Supreme Court assessed the Commission’s actions in light of the statutory distribution of authority between local executives and the Commission.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court to annul the trial court’s decision and the appellate court’s resolution dismissing the appeal. They contended that the trial court had acted with disregard of existing laws and that Resolution No. 40 and the Municipal Council procedures unlawfully supplanted the mayor’s license-issuing authority. Petitioners also argued that the municipal council’s reliance on an Unnumbered Provincial Circular and on an asserted 200‑meter limitation deprived Gallera of rights.

Respondents’ Position

Respondents maintained that under Republic Act No. 1224 the municipal council had discretion to determine cockpit distances but that the retroactivity proscription in RA 1224 protected cockpits licensed and operating before the enactment of a municipal ordinance. Respondents asserted that Municipal Ordinance No. 4 prescribed a 50‑meter limit and that the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum, established in 1955, was not prejudiced by that ordinance. Respondents further stressed that the mayor had primary authority to issue licenses under P.D. 449 and P.D. 1802, and that the Municipal Council’s Resolution No. 40 was ultra vires because the mayor did not concur.

Issues Presented

The principal issues were whether the trial court’s declaratory judgment and injunctive relief were legally supportable in light of RA 1224, P.D. 449, and P.D. 1802; whether Municipal Ordinance No. 4 could be retroactively applied to prejudice the Coliseum; whether the Municipal Council’s actions properly displaced the mayor’s licensing authority; and whether the withdrawal and dismissal of the appeal defeated petitioners’ rights as transferees of Gallera.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and the Intermediate Appellate Court’s resolution. The Court concluded that the trial court’s findings and the orders implementing them were legally supportable and that the appellate court correctly treated the appeal as withdrawn and entered judgment accordingly.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court analyzed Republic Act No. 1224 and held that it vested discretion in the municipal council to regulate cockpit locations and to fix distance limits from public buildings, while expressly forbidding retroactive application of such municipal ordinances to cockpits already licensed and operating at the time of enactment. The Court found Municipal Ordinance No. 4 valid and not subject to a successful challenge for grave abuse of discretion. The Court accepted the trial court’s factual finding, supported by a certification of the Provincial Engineer, that the Coliseum complied with the 50‑meter requirement of the municipal ordinance. The Court examined P.D. 449 and P.D. 1802 and concluded that neither imposed an absolute 200‑meter rule applicable to cockpits when a local ordinance already prescribed a distance. The Court emphasized that P.D. 449 left the primary responsibility to local executives to prevent cockpits from operating within or near certain areas unless zoning or local ordinance provided otherwise. The Court further held that the mayor retains primary authority to issue cockpit permits under P.D. 449 and that the municipal council’s role is to ratify, not to unilaterally determine licensability. Because Resolution No. 40 lacked the mayor’s concurrence, the Court characterized it as ultra vires and without binding effect. The Court also observed that the equ

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 73022)

Parties and Posture

Georgia Adlawan, owner, and Ramon Villordon and Manuel Villordon, shareholders and operators/managers of the Gallera Bagong Lipunan, appeared as petitioners in this petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking nullification of lower court rulings.
The Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court and The Hon. Regional Trial Court, Branch XIII, Cebu City appeared as respondent courts whose decision and resolution were assailed.
The Philippine Gamefowl Commission and private respondents Nicolas Enad, Abelardo Larumbe, and Martiniano De la Calsada, shareholders of the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum, opposed the petition.
The petition sought cancellation of the entry of judgment entered on September 13, 1985 consequent to the dismissal of an appeal and sought nullification of the trial court’s declaratory relief with injunction.

Key Facts

The Minglanilla Junior Coliseum operated since July 1955 and was located in the poblacion of Minglanilla, Cebu.
The Gallera Bagong Lipunan, originally established in 1967 under various names, was located in Barrio Calajo-an of Minglanilla and was later owned and operated by petitioners.
A 1972 directive from the provincial Philippine Constabulary advised that only one licensed municipal cockpit be allowed per municipality and that barrio cockpits should not operate unless certified as municipal by the mayor.
The Provincial Command initially upheld the Coliseum as municipal cockpit on December 8, 1972, but the Municipal Council later adopted a committee report recommending retention and certification of the Gallera as municipal cockpit.
The Municipal Council adopted Municipal Ordinance No. 4 on February 9, 1969 prescribing a fifty-meter distance limit from public buildings for cockpits.
Private respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief with injunction and obtained a judgment ordering issuance of license to them, closure of Gallera, and permanent injunction against respondents named in the petition.
During pendency of the appeal to the then Intermediate Appellate Court, Ma. Luz Rosete Diores sold Gallera to petitioner Georgia Adlawan and then moved to withdraw her appeal, which the appellate court granted and entered as final on September 13, 1985.
The trial court ordered writ of execution on October 14, 1985, and the Philippine Gamefowl Commission issued a resolution on October 10, 1985 cancelling Gallera’s registration and approving registration of the Coliseum, while later issuing an interlocutory order in 1986 allowing Gallera to operate.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 1224 vested municipal and city legislative bodies with discretionary authority to regulate or prohibit the establishment, maintenance, and operation of cockpits and exempted cockpits already licensed and operating from subsequent municipal distance ordinances.
Presidential Decree No. 449 provided that cockpits shall be sited according to zoning laws or ordinances and, in the absence of such ordinances, local executives shall prevent cockpits near residential areas and public buildings.
Presidential Decree No. 1802, as amended, created the Philippine Gamefowl Commission and provided supervisory powers over cockfighting matters while recognizing local executive authority under specified circumstances.
Section 1, Rule 64, Rules of Court defines the nature of actions for declaratory relief and their usual non-executory character.

Procedural History

Private respondents filed a special civil action for declaratory relief with injunction in the then Court of First Instance, Branch XIII, Cebu, which rendered judgment in their favor ordering issuance of license and closure of Gallera.
Ma. Luz Rosete Diores appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court under CA-GR UDK No. 4914 and later executed a deed of sale transfe