G.R. No. L-1897; November 28, 1949
JOSE DE BORJA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DEOGRACIAS V. VILLADOLID, Director of Fisheries, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Jose de Borja, a licensed fish peddler, owned two motor boats with coastwise licenses from the Bureau of Customs. He used these boats solely to transport fish bought from fishermen in Busuanga, Palawan, and Lubang, Batangas, to Manila for sale, without participating in the actual catching of fish. The Director of Fisheries required him to secure a commercial fishing boat license under Act No. 4003, as amended. De Borja refused, arguing the law did not apply because his boats were not used for catching fish. After the Director referred the matter to the City Fiscal for possible prosecution, de Borja filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking a judicial declaration that he was not required to secure such a license. The lower court dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint for declaratory relief was properly dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order, holding that an action for declaratory relief under Rule 66, section 2 of the Rules of Court must be filed before any breach of a statute occurs. Here, the plaintiff’s refusal to secure the license constituted a breach, and the Director had already initiated steps toward criminal prosecution by referring the case to the City Fiscal. The facts were clear and unambiguous, leaving no legal rights, duties, or status requiring judicial construction. The proper course was for the impending criminal action to proceed, where the issue of whether de Borja’s operations required a license could be definitively resolved. The Court declined to rule on the substantive question of whether a commercial fishing boat license was required for vessels merely transporting fish, as the procedural defect barred the declaratory relief action. Costs were imposed on the appellant.

AI Generated by Armztrong.