Landingin v. Gacad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Abelardo Landingin owned two fishing contraptions known as parigdig in Calpay Shoal, Sual, Pangasinan, for which he paid licenses up to 1955. In 1949, the Municipality of Sual enacted an ordinance requiring fish corrals to be at least 200 meters apart. Around January 3, 1955, defendant Paulo Gacad began constructing his parigdig nearer to the center of Calpay Shoal, allegedly blocking the flow of fish ('Armang') to plaintiff's parigdig. A committee reported Gacad's parigdig was within 10 meters of Landingin's. Procedural History: The plaintiff filed an action for injunction in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan to compel the defendant to remove his parigdig. A preliminary injunction was issued. Subsequently, the CFI granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint stated no cause of action. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal. The Appeal: The plaintiff-appellant argued that the CFI's order of dismissal was erroneous. He contended that (1) a parigdig is a fish corral, (2) the defendant had not secured the required license for his parigdig, and thus was not entitled to court protection, and (3) even if the ordinance did not explicitly cover parigdig in its distance limitations, the court should still determine the necessity of a reasonable distance between such contraptions.
Issue(s)
Whether a 'parigdig' is considered a 'fish corral' under Municipal Ordinance No. 9 of Sual, Pangasinan, for the purpose of applying the 200-meter distance limitation. Whether the complaint stated a cause of action for injunction to compel the removal of the defendant's 'parigdig' based on proximity to the plaintiff's 'parigdig'.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance dismissing the complaint, holding that the complaint stated no cause of action. The Court ruled that a 'parigdig' is distinct from a 'fish corral' as defined by the ordinance and by law, and therefore, the 200-meter distance limitation applicable to fish corrals does not apply to 'parigdig.' The Court also noted that the municipality, not the plaintiff, is the proper party to enforce its ordinances.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that a 'parigdig' is not a fish corral under Municipal Ordinance No. 9. This conclusion was based on the explicit separate listing of 'fish corrals, baclad or pasabing' under Section 1(a) and 'Salambao or parigdig' under Section 1(c), with distinct license fees. The Court reasoned that if the municipal council intended them to be the same, they would have been grouped together. Furthermore, the definition of a fish corral provided in Act No. 4003, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 471, describes a stationary weir or trap with specific construction features that do not align with the plaintiff's description of a 'parigdig.' The description of a 'parigdig' provided by the plaintiff's counsel involved two structures 12 meters apart, with a net suspended between them, which differs significantly from the statutory definition of a fish corral. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the ordinance cited by the plaintiff did not apply to the defendant's 'parigdig.' Since the ordinance's distance limitation of 200 meters was specifically for 'fish corrals' and not for 'parigdig,' there was no legal basis to compel the defendant to remove his contraption based on proximity. The Court emphasized that the failure of the ordinance to prescribe a distance limitation for contraptions other than fish corrals indicated a legislative intent to allow their use without regard to distance. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for injunction based on the violation of a non-applicable ordinance was legally insufficient. The Court also pointed out that the proper party to enforce municipal ordinances is the municipality itself, and any desire for new regulations regarding distances should be addressed to the Municipal Council.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance that explicitly differentiates between 'fish corrals' and 'parigdig' must be interpreted according to these distinctions. If the ordinance imposes distance limitations only on 'fish corrals' and not on 'parigdig,' then the distance limitation does not apply to 'parigdig.' Consequently, a complaint seeking to compel the removal of a 'parigdig' based on a distance violation under an ordinance that does not cover 'parigdig' fails to state a cause of action. The enforcement of municipal ordinances rests with the municipality, and individuals seeking new regulations should petition the municipal council.