People v. Garing

G.R. No. L-8611 · 1914-10-13 · J. ARAULLO, J.: · Primary: Taxation; Secondary: Civil
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Bonifacio Garing was charged with violating Municipal Ordinance No. 9, amended by No. 14, series of 1900, of the township of Naujan, for allegedly placing a fish weir in the Butas River. This device, though facing the sea, was arranged to catch fish coming from Naujan Lake. Procedural History: Garing was initially sentenced by the justice of the peace. He appealed to the Court of First Instance. In the Court of First Instance, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint. Garing demurred to the complaint, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional. The Court of First Instance sustained the demurrer, declaring the ordinance illegal and unconstitutional. The fiscal appealed this order. The Appeal: The fiscal appealed the order of dismissal, arguing that the municipal council of Naujan had the authority to enact the ordinance in question. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the validity and constitutionality of Municipal Ordinance No. 14.

Issue(s)

Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 14, series of 1900, of the township of Naujan, which regulates fishing in the Butas and San Agustin Rivers and the taking of fish from the sea within its jurisdiction, is illegal and unconstitutional. Whether the municipal council of Naujan had the authority to enact the said ordinance.

Ruling

The Supreme Court revoked the order of dismissal appealed from and overruled the demurrer filed by the defendant against the complaint. The case was remanded to the court below for further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that Municipal Ordinance No. 14, series of 1900, of the township of Naujan, is not unconstitutional. The Court found that the ordinance merely regulated the use and enjoyment of the right to fish in the Butas, San Agustin, and Nag-iba Rivers and the sea within the township's jurisdiction. It designated specific seasons and methods for fishing to protect the fisheries and ensure the sustainability of fish populations, thereby preventing detriment to the industry and occasioning a decrease in fish numbers. The ordinance's provisions, including those on the construction of fish weirs and nets with specific opening sizes, were deemed necessary for the protection and improvement of a common property of the municipality. The Court clarified that the ordinance did not prohibit fishing but rather granted the right through necessary regulation for the protection and improvement of the common property. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court affirmed that the municipal council of Naujan possessed the authority to enact the ordinance. The Court referenced Section 29 (r) of Act No. 1397, The Township Government Act, which empowers township councils to make ordinances necessary to carry into effect their powers and duties, promote prosperity, and protect property. Furthermore, Section 43 (a) of the same Act, as amended, explicitly allows townships to collect fees for granting fishery privileges. The Court reasoned that the power to grant licenses and privileges necessarily implies the power to regulate them through ordinances. Additionally, citing Section 2 of the Corporation Law (Act No. 1459), the Court stated that municipal corporations possess powers incidental to their existence, aimed at realizing their purposes, which include securing the material good for inhabitants, improving sources of wealth and production, and developing properties and industries. Therefore, the township of Naujan had the power to pass the ordinance in question.

Main Doctrine

Municipal councils are empowered to enact ordinances that regulate local industries and protect common properties, such as fisheries, as long as these ordinances are consistent with existing laws and serve the purpose of promoting the welfare and prosperity of the community. This authority extends to designating seasons and methods for fishing to ensure the sustainability of resources and prevent their depletion, reflecting powers incidental to the council's existence and its duty to manage local resources for the benefit of its constituents.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →