GR L 19639; (February, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19639 February 26, 1965
CHUA U, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. HON. MANUEL LIM, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellants.
FACTS
Petitioners are owners and operators of Bijon (rice spaghetti) factories in Bulacan, using rice and/or corn as the principal ingredient. The Rice and Corn Board, created under Republic Act No. 3018 (which nationalized the rice and corn industry), issued Resolution No. 10 declaring that the Bijon industry is included within the Act’s coverage. The petitioners filed a suit for declaratory judgment in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, seeking to annul the Board’s resolution. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring that Republic Act No. 3018 did not include bijon manufacturers and making the preliminary injunction against the Board permanent. The Rice and Corn Board, through the Solicitor General, appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the action for declaratory judgment was proper to challenge the Rice and Corn Board’s ruling that the bijon industry is covered by Republic Act No. 3018 .
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and ordered the dismissal of the action for declaratory judgment. The Court held that the remedy of declaratory judgment was improper for several reasons: First, petitioners had available administrative remedies, as they could have appealed the Board’s ruling to its superiors and thereafter instituted an ordinary judicial action. Declaratory relief is proper only when adequate relief is not available through other existing forms of action. Second, the declaratory judgment would affect other manufacturers and processors of rice and corn derivatives not represented in the proceedings. Third, an action for declaratory judgment must be brought before any breach of the statute, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the Court found the stipulated facts insufficient to warrant a verdict, as data on whether bijon producers could create an artificial scarcity of rice or corn was lacking. The dismissal was without prejudice to other remedies available to the parties.