G.R. No. L-14432; July 26, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONCIO LIM, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On November 19, 1955, Chief of Police Pamfilo Hilvano and two policemen of Zumarraga, Samar, while on sea patrol in Maqueda Bay, observed two fishing boats, the “Helen (Ellen) II” and the “Florantor,” moving in a manner indicating they were engaged in trawl fishing, which was prohibited in that area by Fishery Administrative Order (FAO) No. 37-1. FAO No. 37-1, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, prohibited all kinds of trawl from operating in Maqueda, Villareal, and Carigara Bays, including Zumarraga Channel. The policemen gave chase. Upon approaching, they saw the “Helen II” lifting its nets, with fish on board. The boat’s owner, Leoncio Lim, who was on board, sped away to evade apprehension. The policemen apprehended the other boat, “Florantor.” A criminal complaint was filed against Lim for violating Section 2 of FAO No. 37-1. After being found guilty by the Justice of the Peace Court and on appeal to the Court of First Instance of Samar, Lim was sentenced to six months imprisonment, a fine of Two Hundred Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs. The trial court also considered his being a recidivist as an aggravating circumstance and recommended confiscation of his fishing license. Lim appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Fishery Administrative Order (FAO) No. 37-1 is void for being contrary to its enabling law, Act No. 4003 (Fisheries Act).
2. Whether FAO No. 37-1 is discriminatory.
3. Whether the evidence sufficiently establishes the guilt of the appellant.
4. Whether FAO No. 37-1 is invalid due to a lack of showing that the order it amended (FAO No. 37) was approved by the President.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, finding no error.
1. On the Validity of FAO No. 37-1 vis-à-vis Act No. 4003: The Court held that FAO No. 37-1 is not void. Appellant contended that while Act No. 4003 authorized a prohibition for any single period not exceeding five years, FAO No. 37-1 established an absolute, perpetual ban. The Court found this discrepancy was likely an oversight. It ruled that an implementing regulation cannot go beyond the terms of the basic law. Therefore, if the Secretary intended a perpetual ban, FAO No. 37-1 would be inoperative insofar as it exceeds the five-year limit, but this does not render the entire order void. The basic Act prevails over the discrepant part of the regulation.
2. On the Charge of Discrimination: The Court rejected the claim that FAO No. 37-1 was discriminatory. The prohibition is not against a class of fishermen but against a specific method of fishing (trawling) in certain defined areas. The Court endorsed the trial court’s explanation that trawl fishing is highly destructive, as it plows the sea bottom, destroying fish breeding grounds, shelter, and food, justifying the selective prohibition for conservation.
3. On the Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found the appellant’s guilt fully established. It upheld the trial court’s findings, which disbelieved Lim’s claim that his boat was merely delivering a net. The circumstances—the boat’s location in the restricted area, its slow movement with nets down, the act of lifting nets upon the patrol’s approach, the presence of fish on board, and the immediate flight—conclusively proved illegal trawl fishing. The Court also noted Lim was a recidivist, having been previously convicted for the same offense.
4. On the Validity of FAO No. 37 (the Amended Order): The Court rejected the argument that FAO No. 37-1 was invalid because FAO No. 37 (which it amended) did not show the President’s approval. Applying the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, the Court presumed FAO No. 37 was duly approved. It reasoned that there would be no need to amend an order that was invalid from the start; the fact that FAO No. 37-1 was promulgated as an amendment implies the validity of the original order.