G.R. No. L-5580, EUFEMIO MUMAR, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CANUTO DIEPARINE, defendant-appellant. December 27, 1910.

FACTS:
Eufemio Mumar (plaintiff) filed an action for damages against Canuto Dieparine (defendant) for the alleged wrongful destruction of his fish trap in the waters of Talibon, Bohol.

Plaintiff alleged that he had a proper license from March 1906 to February 1907 and had placed his fish trap in Lobungan in February 1907. He claimed that the defendant, knowing this, placed another trap in the same locality and on February 14, 1907, removed or caused the removal of the plaintiff’s trap, transferring its materials to a municipal building. Plaintiff sought P1,500 for the value of materials and P3,000 for lost profits.

Defendant countered that he obtained a license on December 11, 1906, and constructed and began operating his fish trap first. He alleged that the plaintiff, illegally and in violation of municipal ordinances, constructed his trap on December 27, 1906, within a prohibited distance (150 feet) of the defendant’s trap. Defendant complained to authorities, leading to plaintiff’s arrest, conviction, and fine.

Evidence showed that defendant obtained his license on December 11, 1906, and completed his trap before December 24, 1906. Plaintiff, without a license, began constructing his trap in the same area, within 150 feet of the defendant’s trap, prior to December 24, 1906. Plaintiff only obtained his license on December 24, 1906, for the trap he had already started. Municipal ordinances prohibited building a fish trap without a license and building one (even with a license) within 150 feet of an existing or in-progress trap.

The Court found that plaintiff’s actions in constructing his fish trap were in violation of the municipality’s ordinances (initially no license and within 150 feet of defendant’s trap). Crucially, the Court found that the defendant took no part, directly or indirectly, in the removal of the plaintiff’s fish trap; it was done by the municipal police under the municipality’s directions.

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding P400 in damages plus interest. Defendant appealed.

ISSUE:
Is Canuto Dieparine (defendant) liable for damages for the removal of Eufemio Mumar’s (plaintiff) fish trap, given that plaintiff’s trap was constructed in violation of municipal ordinances and was removed by municipal authorities?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and absolved Canuto Dieparine from liability.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s acts in constructing his fish trap were in violation of municipal ordinances from the outset. He began construction without a license, and even after obtaining one, his trap was within 150 feet of the defendant’s already existing trap, which was prohibited. Consequently, the plaintiff acquired no rights against the municipality or the defendant by such illegal acts.

Furthermore, the evidence explicitly showed that the defendant took no direct or indirect part in the removal of the plaintiff’s fish trap. The removal was carried out by the municipal police under the directions of the municipality itself. Since the defendant was not responsible for the act of removal, he could not be held liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff.