ABELARDO LANDINGIN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. PAULO GACAD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Plaintiff Abelardo Landingin is the owner of two fishing contraptions locally
known as parigdig constructed in 1954, in Calpay Shoal, Municipality of
Sual, Pangasinan for which he paid the municipal licenses thereof up to the year
1955. In 1949, an ordinance was enacted and approved by the Municipal Council of
Sual, limiting the distance of fish corrals to a minimum of 200 meters from each
other. About January 3, 1955, defendant Paulo Gacad commenced the construction
of a parigdig 10 meters from and at a place north and fronting the
parigdig of plaintiff, nearer to the center of Calpay Shoal, thereby
blocking the flow of fish locally known as “Armang” to plaintiff’s
parigdig. A committee appointed by the municipal Mayor of Sual to
investigate the case, reported that defendant’s parigdig was
constructed within 10 meters from plaintiff’s parigdig. As defendant
insisted to continue with the operation of his parigdig the plaintiff
filed an action for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to
compel the defendant to remove his parigdig. A writ of preliminary
injunction was issued, commanding the defendant to desist from committing
further acts tending to block, fully or partially, the flow of fish locally
known as “armang” to the plaintiff’s parigdig. On March 18, 1955, the
trial court granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendant, based upon the
ground that the complaint states no cause of action. The plaintiff appealed and
in his brief alleged that the order of dismissal was erroneous.

The pertinent portions of Ordinance No. 9 of the Municipal Council of Sual,
provide:

Section. 1. License and Fees. The privilege of taking fish from the municipal
waters other than erecting fish corrals, traps and other fishing tackles,
operating fishponds, or oysters culture beds, or catching barigos fry shall be
granted to persons qualified to pay all necessary fees promulgated by this
ordinance, payment of the corresponding fees for the fishing apparatus used
herein specified: Provided, that no fisherman or fishermen shall catch fish
within 200 meters from a fish corral unless himself is the owher of the corral,
provided further, that this fees herein which is an annual fee, may be paid
quarterly, if so desired by the applicant:

*******

(Italics supplied.)

Plaintiff-appellant claims that the case comes within the operation and
purview of the above quoted ordinance, stating that (1) a parigdig is a
fish corral; (2) The defendant has not secured the required license for his
parigdig, and, therefore, is not entitled to the Court’s protection,
and (3) Granting, arguendo, that the ordinance does not embrace
parigdig, in the distance limitations, the court, nevertheless, is
called upon to determine the necessity of a reasonable distance between
parigdigs.

There is no question in our mind that parigdig is not a fish corral.
From the very ordinance just quoted, “fish corrals, baclad or pasabing,” under
(a), and “Salambao” or parigdig, under (c), are entirely distinct and
separate items. If the intention of the municipal council was to consider fish
corral and parigdig as the same fishing contraptions, it would have
listed the two items together, inasmuch as they all have the same license fees,
in one group. Moreover, Act No. 4003, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 471,
defines fish corral as follows:

“A ‘fish corral’ or ‘baclad’ means a stationary weir or trap devised to
intercept and capture fish, consisting of. rows or stakes or bamboo, palma brava
or ether materials fenced with either split bamboo mattings or wire nettings
with one or more enclosures usually with easy entrance but difficult exit, and
with or without leaders to direct the fish to the catching chambers or
pound.”

The alleged sketch showing the construction of parigdig, attached as
Annex ‘A’ to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, submitted by
plaintiff-appellant, is not before us. Counsel for plaintiff-appellant, however,
described the parigdig as follows:

“As can be seen in the sketch, parigdig constitutes two (2) identical
structures 12 meters apart. Each structure is composed of two parallel posts, 5
rows of posts parallel to each other,”- on top of which are joined bamboo
railings similar to raft. Betwieen these two structures, a fishing net is hanged
with a circumference of 50 meters, more or less, attached to four posts equipped
with ropes and pulley to enable the net to be raised or lowered at
will.”

This description of a parigdig, does not coincide with the
description of a fish corral given in tne said Act No. 4003r which further
strengthens the conclusion that a parigdig is not the same as a “fish
corral”. The failure of said ordinance to prescribe a distance limitation for
contraptions other than fish corrals, shows the legislative intention of
allowing the use of parigdig and contraptions, other than fish corrals,
at any place the fisherman may choose, without regard to distance. In other
words, one parigdig may be constructed and operated at a distance of
less than 200 meters from another parigdig.

Having reached the above conclusion, it follows that the complaint must be
dismissed, for failure to state a cause of action, irrespective of whether the
defendant has or has no license to construct and operate a parigdig. At any
rate, the municipality of Sual, and not the plaintiff, can take action for the
enforcement of the ordinance in question. Regarding the necessity of determining
and prescribing distances between parigdigs, so as to avoid chaos and
confusion among fishermen, the plaintiff may make representations to the same
Municipal Council to that effect.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Judgement affirmed.