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

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant 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. He did not engage in catching fish. Defendant-appellee, the Director of Fisheries, required de Borja to secure a commercial fishing boat license under Act No. 4003 , as amended. De Borja refused, arguing the law did not apply as 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. An action for declaratory relief under Rule 66, Section 2 of the Rules of Court must be filed before any breach of a statute or contract occurs. Here, the defendant had already demanded compliance and referred the case for criminal prosecution, indicating an actionable violation had taken place. The purpose of declaratory relief is to adjudicate legal rights before a breach, not to preempt or prejudice an impending criminal action. Since the facts were clear and a breach was already alleged, the remedy of declaratory relief was no longer available. The Court did not reach the substantive issue of whether a transport boat required a commercial fishing license.

AI Generated by Armztrong.