Adlawan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224 expressly prohibits the retroactive application of a municipal ordinance fixing distances for cockpits to those already licensed and operating at the time of the ordinance’s enactment. Moreover, under Presidential Decree No. 449, the municipal mayor has the sole authority to issue cockpit licenses, and the municipal council may only ratify the mayor’s action; the council cannot itself determine licensability and impose its choice on the mayor.

Two cockpits operated in Minglanilla, Cebu before martial law: the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum, existing since July 1955 at the poblacion, and the Gallera Bagong Lipunan (formerly Bag‑Ong Bulangan), established in 1967 at Barrio Calajoan. When Presidential Decree No. 449 (Cockfighting Law of 1974) mandated a single cockpit per municipality, a dispute arose as to which cockpit should be recognized as the municipal cockpit. The Philippine Constabulary initially upheld the Coliseum, but on appeal the matter was referred back to the municipal council. The council passed a resolution recommending the Gallera, invoking an unnumbered provincial circular that supposedly required a 200‑meter distance from public buildings. The shareholders of the Coliseum then challenged the council’s resolution through an action for declaratory relief with injunction, asserting their right to operate as the municipal cockpit.

• The Competing Cockpits: The Minglanilla Junior Coliseum was established in July 1955 at the poblacion of Minglanilla, Cebu; it was owned and operated by private respondents. Gallera Bagong Lipunan (originally Bag‑Ong Bulangan, later La Gallera de Minglanilla) was established in 1967 at Barrio Calajoan, successively operated by several persons, ultimately by petitioners.

• The PC Policy and Initial Determination: On November 27, 1972, the Office of the Mayor received a radio message from the Cebu Provincial Command of the Philippine Constabulary prohibiting barrio cockpits and allowing only one municipal cockpit per municipality. The Philippine Constabulary rendered a decision on December 8, 1972 upholding the Coliseum as the municipal cockpit. The operator of Gallera appealed, and the Zone Commander referred the matter back to the municipal council.

• The Municipal Council’s Recommendation: The Committee on Laws and Ordinances recommended retention of Gallera, invoking Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224 and an Unnumbered Provincial Circular (reportedly issued by the Provincial Governor on January 3, 1969) that requested local officials to prohibit cockpits within poblaciones and within 200 lineal meters of public buildings, schools, hospitals, and churches. The committee concluded that the Coliseum failed to meet the 200‑meter limit and that Municipal Ordinance No. 4 (1969), which set a 50‑meter limit, was invalid for lack of provincial board approval. The council adopted the report and passed Resolution No. 40, Series of 1973, requesting the mayor to certify Gallera as the municipal cockpit. The then mayor, Felicisimo Cana, did not participate in the resolution.

• Municipal Ordinance No. 4: Enacted on February 9, 1969, the ordinance required cockpits to be at least 50 lineal meters from public buildings.

• The Action for Declaratory Relief: Private respondents Enad and Larumbe filed suit against the municipal council, the mayor, and the Gallera operator, seeking judicial interpretation of their rights under the cockpit laws and an injunction against the enforcement of the council resolution. The trial court found that Ordinance No. 4 was valid and that the Coliseum complied with the 50‑meter distance, as certified by the Provincial Engineer. It also held that even if a 200‑meter rule applied, the Coliseum was more than 200 meters from the relevant public buildings. The court ordered the mayor to issue a license to the Coliseum, the Sangguniang Bayan to ratify it, the Philippine Gamefowl Commission to register the Coliseum, and the closure of Gallera.

• Subsequent Events: While the appeal was pending, Diores sold the Gallera to Adlawan and withdrew her appeal, leading to its dismissal and entry of judgment. The trial court issued a writ of execution, and the Philippine Gamefowl Commission later cancelled Gallera’s registration certificate, although it granted an interlocutory order allowing Gallera to operate in 1986.

• Distance Requirement: Petitioners maintained that the Coliseum fell short of the mandatory 200‑meter distance prescribed by the Unnumbered Provincial Circular and, by extension, by Republic Act No. 1224, and that Gallera alone met the standard.
• Validity of Ordinance No. 4: The municipal ordinance setting a 50‑meter limit was invalid because it lacked the requisite approval of the Provincial Board of Cebu; therefore, the default 200‑meter rule governed.
• Authority of the Municipal Council: The Sangguniang Bayan’s Resolution No. 40, which certified Gallera as the municipal cockpit, was binding on the mayor, and the mayor could not disregard the council’s determination.

• Non‑Retroactivity of Ordinance No. 4: Private respondents argued that Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224 expressly prohibits the retroactive application of a distance‑fixing ordinance to a cockpit already licensed and operating before its enactment; the Coliseum had been operating since 1955, while Ordinance No. 4 was passed only in 1969.
• Compliance with Distance Requirement: Even if Ordinance No. 4 applied, the Coliseum satisfied the 50‑meter limit, as confirmed by the Provincial Engineer. No law imposed a mandatory 200‑meter distance for cockpits.
• Primary Authority of the Mayor: Under Presidential Decree No. 449, the mayor alone is empowered to issue cockpit licenses; the council merely ratifies and cannot usurp the mayor’s licensing function. Resolution No. 40 was therefore ultra vires.
• Equities: The Coliseum had been in continuous operation since 1955 and was situated in the poblacion; it was entitled to preference over the Gallera, which was a later barrio cockpit.

• Retroactivity of Municipal Ordinance: Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 4 of 1969, fixing a 50‑meter distance, could prejudice the Minglanilla Junior Coliseum, which had been established in 1955.
• Validity of Ordinance No. 4: Whether the ordinance was void for lack of provincial board approval, thereby making a supposed 200‑meter rule applicable.
• Applicable Distance Requirement: Whether Republic Act No. 1224 or Presidential Decree No. 449 imposed a mandatory 200‑meter distance limit for cockpits from public buildings.
• Mayoral vs. Council Licensing Authority: Whether the municipal council could, through a mere resolution, determine which cockpit should be licensed and compel the mayor to issue a license accordingly.
• Propriety of Affirmative Relief in Declaratory Action: Whether the trial court properly granted the affirmative reliefs of mandatory injunction, closure, and registration in an action for declaratory relief.
• Effect of Withdrawal of Appeal: Whether the withdrawal of the appeal by the former owner and the entry of judgment barred the present petition on the merits.

• Retroactivity of Municipal Ordinance: Ordinance No. 4 could not be applied to the Coliseum. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224 expressly states that no municipal ordinance fixing distances for cockpits shall apply to those already licensed and operating at the time of the ordinance’s enactment. The Coliseum had been operating since 1955, while the ordinance was enacted only in 1969; thus, the ordinance could not prejudice its existence or operation. Even assuming the ordinance covered the Coliseum, the trial court found — based on a Provincial Engineer’s certification — that the cockpit was more than 50 meters from the relevant public buildings.

• Validity of Ordinance No. 4: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion or any fatal flaw attending the enactment of Ordinance No. 4. The ordinance remained valid and enforceable absent proof of its invalidity; the contention that it lacked provincial board approval was not substantiated with evidence that would warrant its nullification.

• Applicable Distance Requirement: Neither Republic Act No. 1224, Presidential Decree No. 449, nor Presidential Decree No. 1802 imposed a mandatory 200‑meter limit for cockpits. Republic Act No. 1224 left the distance to the discretion of the municipal council. The 200‑meter reference in the same law applies to nightclubs, cabarets, and similar places — not to cockpits. Presidential Decree No. 449 merely provides that, in the absence of a zoning ordinance, the local executive shall ensure cockpits are not constructed within or near residential or commercial areas, but where an ordinance like Ordinance No. 4 exists, that ordinance controls. The Unnumbered Provincial Circular could not override the express statutory scheme.

• Mayoral vs. Council Licensing Authority: Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 449 vests the sole authority to issue cockpit licenses in the municipal mayor, subject to council ratification. The council’s role is purely ratificatory; it cannot on its own initiative pass upon a cockpit’s licensability and then impose its choice on the mayor. Resolution No. 40 was passed with only the vice‑mayor’s concurrence, without the mayor’s participation, and was therefore ultra vires and without binding effect.

• Propriety of Affirmative Relief in Declaratory Action: Although the action was framed as one for declaratory relief, the allegations and evidence adduced were sufficient to make out a case for specific performance and related injunctive relief. Since the defendants did not challenge the propriety of the remedy in the trial court, the court properly awarded affirmative reliefs. This aligns with the doctrine that a court may grant relief beyond a bare declaration when the complaint states a cause of action for specific performance or recovery of property and no timely objection is raised.

• Effect of Withdrawal of Appeal: The dismissal of the appeal after its withdrawal by Diores and the consequent entry of judgment did not preclude the Supreme Court from resolving the petition on the merits; however, the substantive issues were resolved against petitioners, rendering the petition unmeritorious. The trial court’s decision was fully supported by the law and the facts.

• Non‑Retroactivity of Cockpit Distance Ordinances: Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224, a municipal or city ordinance that fixes the allowable distances of cockpits from public buildings, schools, hospitals, or churches cannot be applied to cockpits already licensed and operating at the time the ordinance was enacted. This statutory prohibition preserves the vested right of pre‑existing cockpits to continue operating at their established locations, regardless of subsequent local legislation imposing stricter distance requirements.

• Primary Licensing Authority of the Mayor under the Cockfighting Law: Presidential Decree No. 449, as amended, entrusts to the municipal mayor the sole authority to issue cockpit licenses. The municipal council’s function is limited to ratification of the mayor’s action; it possesses no power to itself determine a cockpit’s licensability and dictate to the mayor which cockpit should be licensed. A council resolution that purports to substitute its judgment for that of the mayor is ultra vires and without legal effect.

• Declaratory Relief — Exception Permitting Affirmative Relief: Although an action for declaratory relief generally results in a mere declaration of rights and does not entail executory process, the court may grant affirmative reliefs — such as specific performance, recovery of property, or damages — when the allegations of the complaint, taken together with the evidence, sufficiently establish a cause of action for such relief, and the defendant does not seasonably object to the form or nature of the action. This principle, drawn from the rulings in Santos v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Congressional Commercial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, allows the court to fashion complete relief and avoid multiplicity of suits.

• ”… no municipal or city ordinance fixing distances at which such places of amusement may be established or operated shall apply to those already licensed and operating at the time of the enactment of such municipal ordinance …” — The statutory non‑retroactivity clause under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1224, quoted by the Court, forms the ratio decidendi for protecting the Coliseum from the 1969 ordinance.

• ”For all intents and purposes, this provision of law specifically entrusts the sole authority to issue permits to the mayors. The municipal council's duty is merely to ratify the mayor's decision before the same can be actually implemented. But the Council cannot, on its own instance or initiative, pass upon the licensability of a particular cockpit and thereafter recommend it to the mayor for approval.” — This passage articulates the hierarchical allocation of licensing power between the mayor and the sanggunian under the cockpit regulatory framework.

• ”A careful study on all laws on cockpits … finds that it is not mandatory that a cockpit should not be less than 200 meters from a public building except when there is no ordinance in a given municipality.” — The trial court’s finding, adopted by the Supreme Court, clarifies that the 200‑meter rule applies only in default of a local ordinance and does not operate as an absolute statutory mandate for cockpits.

• Santos vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA 592 (1986) — Applied as authority for the rule that, in a declaratory relief action, affirmative relief such as specific performance may be granted if the complaint’s allegations are sufficient and no timely objection is raised.
• Congressional Commercial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 146 SCRA 90 (1986) — Followed as further support for the same exception allowing affirmative relief in declaratory suits, particularly where recovery of property and damages are involved.
• Philippine Gamefowl Commission vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 146 SCRA 294 (1986) — Cited to affirm the principle that the mayor has primary authority to issue licenses for ordinary local cockpits, with the Philippine Gamefowl Commission exercising mere supervisory functions over compliance with guidelines.
• Municipality of Malolos vs. Libangang Malolos, Inc., G.R. No. 78592, April 8, 1988 — Referred to for the same doctrinal point, reinforcing the mayor’s licensing primacy.

• Section 1, Republic Act No. 1224 — Vests in municipal/city councils the power to regulate cockpits by ordinance, including the discretion to fix distances from public buildings, but expressly prohibits the retroactive application of such ordinances to cockpits already licensed and operating at the time of enactment. The Court applied the non‑retroactivity clause to shield the 1955 Coliseum from the 1969 ordinance.
• Section 5(c), Presidential Decree No. 449 (Cockfighting Law of 1974) — Provides that cockpits shall be constructed in areas prescribed by zoning laws or ordinances; in the absence of such a law or ordinance, the local executive shall ensure that no cockpit is constructed within or near residential or commercial areas, hospitals, schools, churches, or other public buildings. This provision was interpreted to uphold the local ordinance (No. 4) as the controlling standard, rather than imposing a fixed 200‑meter rule.
• Section 6, Presidential Decree No. 449, as amended by Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1802 and Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1802‑A — Empowers municipal mayors to issue cockpit licenses, initially subject to Chief of Constabulary approval and later subject to Philippine Gamefowl Commission review and supervision. The Court relied on this provision to declare the mayor’s authority sole and primary, and the council’s role merely ratificatory.
• Section 1, Rule 64, Rules of Court (Declaratory Relief) — Establishes that the remedy of declaratory relief is available to determine rights under a statute, ordinance, or contract. The Court, however, applied the jurisprudential exception permitting affirmative relief where warranted.

Melencio‑Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento, JJ., concur.