GR L 19309; (January, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19309 January 30, 1965
VICENTE SAN BUENAVENTURA, petitioner-appellee, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOSE, CAMARINES SUR, MAXIMINO ABRAGAN and STANLY PEÑA, respondents-appellants.
FACTS
The Municipal Council of San Jose, Camarines Sur, held a public bidding on August 7, 1959, for the lease of fishery zones A, B, and C for catching “bangus” fry. Respondent Maximino Abragan was declared the highest bidder and awarded the lease at P550.00, set to expire on December 31, 1959. On November 17, 1959, the council passed Resolution No. 75, extending Abragan’s lease to June 30, 1960, without a new public bidding. After being elected municipal vice-mayor, Abragan assigned his lease rights to respondent Stanly Peña on December 15, 1959. On the same day, the council passed Resolution No. 79 approving the assignment and Resolution No. 80 extending the lease to Peña for five years beginning July 1, 1960, at a yearly rental of P550.00, without public bidding. The Provincial Board of Camarines Sur approved Resolutions Nos. 79 and 80. Petitioner Vicente San Buenaventura, a resident interested in leasing the zones through public bidding, filed a petition for declaratory relief, contending the resolutions were illegal for lack of public bidding and prior provincial board authority.
ISSUE
Whether Resolutions Nos. 75, 79, and 80 of the Municipal Council of San Jose are null and void for violating legal requirements on the lease of municipal fishery privileges.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision declaring Resolutions Nos. 75 and 80 null and void, and also declared Resolution No. 79 null and void. The applicable law is Sections 67 and 69 of the Fisheries Act ( Act No. 4003 , as amended), not the Revised Administrative Code sections cited by the lower court. These provisions require that the grant of fishery privileges must be made to the highest bidder at a public auction. Resolution No. 75 illegally extended Abragan’s lease without a new public bidding. Resolution No. 80 illegally granted a five-year extension to Peña without public bidding. Resolution No. 79, approving the assignment of an illegally extended lease, is likewise invalid. The Court also held that the petitioner’s failure to notify the Provincial Fiscal under Rule 66, Section 5 of the Rules of Court was not a jurisdictional defect and was raised too late on appeal. The respondents were ordered to pay costs.