G.R. No. L-17640 November 29, 1965
VIRGINIA I. VDA. DE LIMJOCO, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF COMMERCE, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Virginia I. Vda. de Limjoco, continuing the business after her husband’s death, owned and operated a rice mill (“kiskisan”) where she milled palay belonging to customers for a fee. The mill was housed within a totally enclosed building called a “camalig.” Customers sometimes delivered more palay than could be milled in one day, leaving the excess in her custody inside the camalig to await milling, with quantities ranging from 10 to 100 cavans. No separate charge was made for this keeping, which was done as a customary favor to customers. Petitioner refused to secure a license under the General Bonded Warehousing Act ( Act No. 3893 as amended by Republic Act No. 247 ), claiming her business of milling palay did not fall under the Act. The Director of Commerce ruled otherwise and initiated steps for prosecution due to her refusal, which were held in abeyance upon the filing of her petition for declaratory relief.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s rice milling business, where palay is delivered by customers and sometimes kept in her camalig awaiting milling, falls within the scope of Act No. 3893 as amended, thereby requiring her to secure a license.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that petitioner’s business is covered by Act No. 3893 as amended. Section 2 of the Act expressly provides that the business of receiving rice for storage includes “any contract or transaction wherein the rice delivered is to be milled for and on account of the owner thereof.” The law is clear and does not require intricate construction. The factual delivery of palay to petitioner and its keeping inside her camalig in appreciable quantities while awaiting milling precisely fits the situation contemplated by the statute. The constitutional requirement that no law shall embrace more than one subject expressed in its title is not infringed, as the title “An Act to Regulate the Business of Receiving Commodity for Storage” is sufficiently broad to cover the milling business where palay is delivered and kept in a warehouse-like structure. The primary legislative intent is to protect the owners of the commodity from possible abuses or negligence of the person to whom physical control is delivered, which public policy demands. The Court cited its prior ruling in People vs. Versola (G.R. No. L-5707, March 27, 1958), which upheld the application of the Act to rice mill operators under similar circumstances.