Limjoco v. Director of Commerce
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner and her deceased husband owned and operated a rice mill ('kiskisan') engaged in milling palay for customers. After her husband's death, petitioner continued the business without renewing the license, which expired on December 31. Petitioner's rice mill is a semicono type, open to the public, charging P0.40 per cavan of palay for milling services. Customers sometimes left palay in petitioner's custody within her enclosed 'camalig' to await milling, with no charge for this temporary keeping, which also benefited petitioner by retaining customers. Procedural History: The Director of Commerce ruled that petitioner's rice milling business falls under Act No. 3893, as amended by Republic Act No. 247, and required her to secure a license. The Court of First Instance of Manila upheld the Director's ruling. The Petition: Petitioner appealed the decision, arguing that her business is primarily milling, not storage, and that the clause in Section 2 of the Act regarding milling should be interpreted in light of the Act's title, which concerns the business of receiving commodity for storage.
Issue(s)
Whether the rice milling business of the petitioner, involving the receipt and temporary keeping of palay for milling, falls within the scope of the General Bonded Warehousing Act (Act No. 3893 as amended by Republic Act No. 247). Whether the inclusion of the business of milling palay within Act No. 3893 infringes upon the constitutional mandate that no law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in its title.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, upholding the applicability of the General Bonded Warehousing Act to the petitioner's rice milling business and ordering her to secure the required license.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of the General Bonded Warehousing Act: The Court held that Section 2 of Act No. 3893, as amended, is clear and unambiguous. It expressly includes within the definition of the business of receiving rice for storage "any contract or transaction wherein the rice delivered is to be milled for and on account of the owner thereof." Therefore, it is sufficient that palay is delivered to the mill operator, even if solely for milling purposes. The Court noted that there were occasions when palay was left in the petitioner's custody within her 'camalig' to await milling, which constitutes a form of storage covered by the Act. The purpose of the law is to protect owners of commodities against possible abuses and negligence by those to whom physical control of their properties is delivered. The Court cited People vs. Versola (G.R. No. L-5707, March 27, 1958) which stated that whenever a rice mill is housed in a 'camarin,' the keeping of palay or rice therein follows as a necessary consequence, even if received exclusively for milling, thus constituting a form of storage for which the operator is responsible. On the constitutional challenge regarding the subject and title of the Act: The Court found no infringement of the constitutional mandate. The subject matter of Act No. 3893, as expressed in its title, is "An Act to Regulate the Business of Receiving Commodity for Storage." The Court ruled that this subject is sufficiently broad to encompass the business of milling palay when the palay is delivered to the mill operator and kept in a structure that serves the purpose of a warehouse. The inadequacy of the petitioner's 'camalig' for storage did not remove her business from the operation of the statute, as such inadequacy would merely indicate non-compliance with legal requirements, not an exemption from the law's liabilities.
Main Doctrine
The business of receiving palay for milling, where the palay is delivered to the mill operator and kept in a structure serving as a warehouse, falls within the purview of the General Bonded Warehousing Act, requiring a license for operation, as the Act expressly includes transactions where the delivered rice is to be milled for the owner.