G.R. No. 58794. August 24, 1984
SPOUSES LYDIA TERRADO & MARTIN ROSARIO, AND DOMINGO FERNANDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FELICIDAD CARANDANG VILLALON, JUDGE, CFI OF PANGASINAN, DEPUTY SHERIF…
GUERRERO, J.:
21, 1933, the Fisheries situated in the locality known as Mangabul,
Bayambang, Pangasinan, and falling within Plan No. Ipd. Ninety-two of
the Bureau of Lands and recently declared by the courts as public land
was reserved and the usufruct thereof ceded to the municipality of
Bayambang, Province of Pangasinan, to be used or disposed of in
accordance with the general municipal law relative to the letting of
fisheries in municipal waters: Provided, That the timber and other
forest products therein shall be placed under the administration and
control of the forest service; Provided further, that the cession shall
not be interpreted as limiting the power of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources to prescribe rules and regulations for the
protection of game birds, mammals or fish within the area ceded to the
municipality of Bayambang. (Section 1, Act 4041. This Act was declared
enforced by Proclamation No. 545 (1933).
On May 15, 1974, the Sanggunian Bayan of Bayambang, Pangasinan passed
Resolution No. 35 enacting Ordinance No. 8, series of 1974, establishing
the Bayambang Fishery and Hunting Park and Municipal Water Shed
embracing all the vast area of the Mangabul Fisheries consisting of
about 2,061 hectares with 19 fishponds and not less than 1,500 hectares
of watershed area. In the said ordinance, the municipality designated,
appointed and constituted private respondent Geruncio Lacuesta as
Manager-Administrator for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25
years, under the condition that said respondent shall pay the
municipality a sum equivalent to 10% of the annual gross income that
may be derived from the sale of forest products, wild game and fish,
which amount shall not be less than P200,000.00 annually. He was
further required to post a bond in the amount of P200,000.00 to guaranty
payment of the 10% due the municipality.
Municipal Ordinance No. 8 was approved by the Provincial Board of
Pangasinan on October 11, 1974 and thereafter was forwarded to the then
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for approval pursuant to
the provisions of the Fisheries Act, Act No. 4003.
On April 4, 1975, the Secretary disapproved the Ordinance because it
grants fishery privileges to respondent Lacuesta without the benefit of
competitive public hearing in contravention of the provisions of Act
4003 as amended.
Respondent Lacuesta interposed an appeal from the disapproval by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the Office of the
President but the appeal was withdrawn by said respondent in his letter
dated July 14, 1977.
The Municipality then informed respondent Lacuesta of the disapproval of
the Ordinance by the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources
and directed him to refrain and desist from acting as
Administrator-Manager under the contract but the latter refused and
insisted in maintaining possession of the fisheries. Inspite of such
refusal, the Sanggunian Bayan of Bayambang, Pangasinan passed Resolution
No. 31, series of 1977, resolving to advertise for public bidding all
fisheries at the Mangabul area for four years and to direct the
Municipal Treasurer to prepare the necessary notices of public bidding,
and accordingly, the Municipal Mayor and the Municipal Treasurer
caused to issue a Notice of Public Bidding scheduled July 5, 6, and 7,
1977. Among the winning bidders were the petitioners herein, the
spouses Lydia Terrado and Martin Rosario and Domingo Fernandez who were
immediately placed in possession of the Mangabul fisheries as of July
6, 1977.
Private respondent Geruncio Lacuesta immediately filed on July 8, 1977 a petition for prohibition and mandamus with
damages with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch IX in
San Carlos City, presided by Judge Augusto Saroca against the Municipal
Mayor, the Municipal Treasurer, the Sanggunian Bayan and the members
thereof, praying that the respondent municipal officials named therein
be prohibited from executing any contract of lease with the winning
bidders and from enforcing Resolution No. 31, series of 1977, and
further asked that a temporary restraining order be issued against said
respondent officials from performing the acts enjoined.
Pursuant to the prayer in the petition for prohibition in Civil Case No.
516, Judge Saroca issued a restraining order enjoining and prohibiting
all the respondents, their agents, representatives and/or anybody acting
for and on their own behalf, from executing any contract of lease with
the winning bidders in the biddings conducted on July 5, 6, and 7, 1977
and from enforcing Resolution No. 31, series of 1977 until further
orders from the court. Respondents in this Civil Case No. 516 filed a
motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order but was denied on
August 17, 1977.
Upon ex-parte motion by Lacuesta asking that the Sheriff of the court be
authorized to enforce the restraining order of July 11, 1977 and to
arrest and keep in his custody all persons violating the same, Judge
Saroca issued on October 7, 1977 an order directing Deputy Sheriff
Alberto V. Soriano to proceed to the Mangabul fisheries and enforce the
restraining order of July 11, 1977 against the respondent municipal
officials, their agents and representatives and to arrest and keep in
custody any and all persons found to be violating said order.
Thereafter, the Deputy Sheriff informed the court on October 26, 1977
that he served copies of the restraining order dated July 11, 1977 on
all parties concerned and that they peacefully vacated and gave the
possession of the fisheries without interposing any formal objection, to
the plaintiffs, Geruncio Lacuesta, et al.
Still in Civil Case No. 516, Lacuesta filed a petition dated September
16, 1977 asking that the defendants named in said petition including the
spouses Lydia Terrado Rosario and Martin Rosario and others be ordered
to explain why they should not be punished for contempt and that they be
arrested immediately and kept in custody until they stop violating the
restraining order of July 11, 1977, further alleging that said spouses
employing misrepresentation, strategies, deceit, threat and force took
over the Mayor fishery and illegally fished therein and are continuing
to fish the same including the Manansan, Alangigan, Tubor and Banawang
na Dueg Fisheries which they had previously took over from the movant
Lacuesta.
The situation became serious as on October 10, 1977 the Sanggunian Bayan
passed Resolution No. 34, series of 1977 “requesting the assistance
from the Department of Natural Resources, the Philippine Constabulary,
Department of Justice, the Provincial Fiscal, the Provincial Governor
and other agencies, for them to enjoin respondent from disturbing and
interfering with the administration by the Municipality of Mangabul
Fisheries and other areas.”
In the meantime that these incidents were pending before Judge Saroca,
the members of the Sanggunian Bayan as petitioners filed on November 15,
1977 a petition for certiorari with the defunct Court of
Appeals against Judge Saroca, the INP Station Commander, Deputy Sheriff
Soriano, and Geruncio Lacuesta and others assailing the order issued on
July 11, 1977 as well as the order issued October 7, 1977 as null and
void, the same having been issued without jurisdiction and with grave
abuse of discretion, the case docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP-07252-R. The
appellate court denied the petition for certiorari and held
that Judge Saroca did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the restraining order of July
11, 1977. The Sanggunian Bayan members elevated the case on a petition
for review on certiorari, G.R. No. 49064 but was denied for lack of merit per Our resolution dated October 16, 1978.
While the certiorari proceeding was pending before the Court of
Appeals, the resolution on the motion for contempt before Judge Saroca
was held in abeyance but upon final decision by the court, Lacuesta
moved the court on July 15, 1979 to resolve the contempt motion as well
as for the order of their arrest. After hearing, Judge Saroca issued
the order dated August 30, 1979 holding that the continued possession of
the spouses Lydia Terrado Rosario and Martin Rosario as winning bidders
constituted disobedience to and unlawful interference with the
temporary restraining order of July 11, 1977 and directed Deputy Sheriff
Soriano to enforce the July 11 and October 7, 1977 orders, to cause the
arrest of said Rosario spouses including their agents and
representatives and any and all person representing themselves as
winning bidders in the public bidding held on July 6, 1977 and to hold
them in custody until further orders of the court, unless said spouses
and their agents and the winning bidders voluntarily refrain from
disobeying and interfering with the process of the court, in which case
they may be discharged from custody. In the same order, Judge Saroca
set a pre-trial conference and hearing on the merits on September 25,
26, and 27, 1979.
Having been adjudged in contempt of court and their immediate arrest
ordered by Judge Saroca in the order mentioned above dated August 30,
1979, the spouses Lydia Terrado Rosario and Martin Rosario filed the
petition for prohibition with the prayer for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction assailing the questioned order as null and void,
having been issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction and praying that respondent Judge Saroca be restrained from
implementing the same, the petition docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP-09724.
Resolving the petition (CA-G.R. No. SP-09724), the Court of Appeals,
acting through the Former Eleventh Division with Justices Victoriano,
J., ponente, and Reyes and Nocon, JJ., concurring, ruled and set aside
the assailed order of August 30, 1979, holding that the Rosario spouses
were not parties to the case, hence, they could not be bound by the
restraining order of July 11, 1977 which enjoined and prohibited the
parties: “(1) from executing any contract of lease with the winning
bidders in the bidding conducted on July 5, 6, and 7, 1977; and/or (2)
from enforcing resolution No. 31, series of 1977 of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Bayambang, Pangasinan, until further orders from this court.”
The order of Judge Saroca dated August 30, 1979 was, therefore, ordered
set aside as having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave
abuse of discretion. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. SP-09724 was promulgated January 24, 1980 thereby upholding the
possession of the spouses Lydia Terrado and Martin Rosario.
Meanwhile, the Municipality of Bayambang, represented by Mayor Jaime P.
Junio and the Sangguniang Bayan of Bayambang represented by the members
thereof, filed on September 5, 1979 Civil Case No. SCC-648 in the Court
of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch X, San Carlos City against
Geruncio Lacuesta for annulment of the contract entered into between the
Municipality and Lacuesta under Ordinance No. 8 hereinbefore mentioned,
injunction and damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction. After the hearing of the incident for the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, Judge Saroca issued an
order dated November 15, 1979 granted the writ as prayed for and ordered
the defendant Lacuesta, his agents, lawyers, representatives, laborers
and other person or persons under his employ to refrain and desist from
interfering with and molesting the plaintiffs in the use of and in the
exercise of plaintiffs’ usufructury rights until further orders from the
court. On November 16, 1979, the day Judge Saroca retired from the
service, he issued another order to the sheriff to cause defendant
Lacuesta to refrain from and desist from enforcing and implementing
Resolution No. 35 enacting Ordinance No. 8, series of 1974 and the
contract of management and administration, restraining them further
from interfering with and molesting the plaintiffs in the use of and in
the exercise of the latters’ usufructury rights until further orders
from the court.
On November 23, 1979, Lacuesta elevated to the Supreme Court the November 15 And 16 orders of Judge Saroca in a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction docketed as G.R. No. 51984. In Our resolution of January 14, 1980, the petition for certiorari was denied for lack of merit. His motion for reconsideration was also denied in Our resolution of February 18, 1980.
With the retirement of Judge Saroca, the case was transferred to Branch
III, Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Dagupan City, presided over
by Judge Felicidad Carandang-Villalon, the case now docketed and
numbered as D-5118. Lacuesta then filed a Motion to Dissolve the
Injunction and to Order Plaintiffs to Vacate and Turn All the Fisheries
to Defendants (the injunction previously issued by Judge Saroca dated
November 15, 1979). The Motion was granted by Judge Carandang-Villalon
on the ground that “after the plaintiffs have recognized and confirmed
the validity of the resolution and the contract, and after the defendant
had started to perform his duties and obligations under the contract,
the legal and factual ground which led the court to issue the writ has
ceased to exist, and consequently, the dissolution of the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction dated November 15, 1979 appears
warranted by prevailing circumstances.” Plaintiff Municipality moved for
reconsideration which was denied in the court’s order of March 9, 1981
which also ordered the issuance of the writ of execution after the
approval of defendant Lacuesta’s bond of P200,000.00.
The plaintiff Municipality thereafter assailed the above orders of Judge
Carandang-Villalon dated November 8, 1981 and March 9, 1981 in the
former’s petition for certiorari with prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction, the petition filed in the Court of Appeals and
docketed as CA-G.R. 12586, dated June 16, 1981.
In the decision of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division, promulgated
September 29, 1981, the court held that “being bereft of merit, as shown
above, the instant petition is hereby denied due course and outrightly
dismissed. Accordingly, the temporary restraining order heretofore
issued is hereby lifted and the urgent motion to lift restraining order
filed on August 19, 1981 and on August 27, 1981 are hereby left
unconsidered for having been rendered moot and academic by the
resolution.” The motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied
by resolution of the appellate court on November 11, 1981.
Meanwhile, when the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch III,
Judge Carandang-Villalon presiding, received copy of the decision in
SP-12586 promulgated September 29, 1981, the court issued an order on
October 5, 1981 for the execution of its previous order to dissolve the
preliminary injunction and place Lacuesta in possession of the contested
fisheries and accordingly, a writ of execution was issued on October 7,
1981.
Another petition for certiorari was filed by the spouses Lydia
Terrado and Martin Rosario and Domingo Fernandez docketed as CA-G.R. No.
SP-13175, assailing the issuance of the order and writ dated October 5,
and 7, 1981 respectively for allegedly violating due process as they
were issued before the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period. In this
petition, SP-13175, the court required respondent Judge and Lacuesta to
comment, the same time issuing a temporary restraining order against
the assailed order and writ of October 5 and 7, 1981 of the respondent
court.
On November 7, 1981, the appellate court (through the Seventh Division and ponente who
handled both SP-12586 and SP-13175), rendered its resolution in
SP-13175 dismissing the petition for lack of merit and setting aside the
order of October 14, 1981 to include the lifting of the restraining
order of even date. The appellate court ruled that:
“Our decision in said CA-G.R. No. SP-12586 held in effect that the
impugned orders (like the order of January 8, 1981), were properly
issued by the respondent court. Hence, those interlocutory orders, the
effectivity of which were suspended by the certiorari
proceedings in CA-G.R. No. SP-12586, presumed to be immediately
executory upon the lifting of the restraining order as done in the
decision of September 29, 1981. This must be so, notwithstanding the
filing on October 21, 1981 of an ‘Urgent Ex-Parte Motion For Extension”
to file motion for reconsideration of said decision because an
injunction, once dissolved, cannot be revived except by a new exercise
of judicial power, and no appeal by a disatisfied party can of itself
revive it. (Watcon vs. Enriquez, 1 Phil. 480; Sitia Teco vs. Ventura, 9
Phil. 497; II Martin, Rules of Court, 1969 Ed., p. 84).Thus, when respondent court issued its herein impugned order of
October 5, 1981 and the Writ of Execution pursuant thereto on October 7,
1981, it was merely putting into effect the immediately operative
interlocutory order dissolving the injunction. There was therefore, no
abuse of discretion.”
When the resolution in SP-13175 was received in the lower court, Judge
Villalon issued on November 6, 1981 an “Alias Writ of Execution and
Possession” which reiterated its writ of October 7, 1981. The alias
writ was received by the Municipality, through counsel, on November 12,
1981.
On November 16, 1981, the Municipality of Bayambang, represented by its Mayor, filed another certiorari
petition to annul the alias writ of November 6, 1981, in CA-G.R. No.
13353 against Judge Carandang-Villalon and Geruncio Lacuesta, the
petition being signed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano.
Since CA-G.R. No. SP-12586 and CA-G.R. No. SP-13353 involve the same
subject matter, the Special Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals to
which CA-G.R. No. SP-13353 was assigned or raffled, resolved in its
Resolution of November 27, 1981 to consolidate the case with CA-G.R. No.
SP-12586 then pending with the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals
as to the plaintiff Municipality’s motion for reconsideration.
The two certiorari petitions, CA-G.R. No. 12586 and CA-G.R. No.
SP-13353, now consolidated in the Seventh Division, were resolved in
the Resolution dated December 4, 1981, thus: “WHEREFORE, the foregoing
considered, the petition in 13353 is hereby dismissed for being a scrap
of paper, the temporary restraining order heretofore issued is hereby
lifted, and the scheduled hearing on December 10, 1981 hereby
discontinued. The motion for reconsideration in SP-12586 is hereby
denied for lack of merit.”
Since the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division, dismissed the petition in
CA-G.R. No. SP-13353 as a mere scrap of paper because Atty. Oliver O.
Lozano was not authorized to represent the petitioner Municipality,
Atty. Lozano submitted the required authority in his Motion for
Reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the petition, further
praying that the resolution of the Sixth Division giving due course to
the petition as well as the temporary restraining order issued therein
be reinstated or restored.
Acting on the motion of the Municipality entitled “Ex-Parte Reiteration
of Motion for Restoration of Temporary Restraining Order” filed on
December 22, 1981 and the “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Stop Arrest of
Petitioner’s Laborers” filed on December 23, 1981, the court in its
Resolution of December 24, 1981 set the hearing of the first motion on
January 15, 1982 and as to the second motion, the court deemed “it wise
and proper in the spirit of love and compassion this Christmastime, to
order that no arrests be ordered by the respondent court against persons
involved in ‘those fisheries in areas covered by existing lease
contracts executed by plaintiff Municipality in favor of entities and/or
persons before November 15, 1979’ until after the results of the
November 15 hearing are received. x x x In effect, therefore, we are
ordering, as it is hereby ordered that a partial temporary restraining
order be issued only as involved the areas with existing lease contract
entered into by the Municipality prior to November 15, 1979.”
After the hearing on January 15, 1982 as alluded to above, the court
promulgated its Resolution dated January 28, 1982, holding that the
pleadings signed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano are deemed valid for purposes
of considering the incidents therein and that the impugned alias writ
of execution issued by respondent court on November 6, 1981 is hereby
declared void only insofar as it has deleted the exception involving
“those fisheries and areas covered by existing lease contract executed
by the plaintiff Municipality in favor of entities and/or persons before
November 15, 1979. Further, the respondent court was directed to
conduct a factual determination of (a) who are the persons or what are
the entities involved, and (b) the clearly specified areas covered by
their contracts, and that prior to the holding of such factual
determination however, the respondent court was ordered to settle the
nature of those “lease contracts” – i.e., whether ordinary lease
contract over a fishery area or contract of lease of services. Finally,
the Court of Appeals ordered that “in case the respondent court finds,
after putting to rest the nature of those lease contracts referred to in
the original order of dissolution and after making the factual
determination herein ordered, that such contracts no longer exist, then
the Partial Temporary Restraining Order above mentioned shall be deemed
ineffective for having then become moot and academic.” The Motion for
Contempt of Court filed by Lacuesta on January 13, 1982 was also denied
by the court.
Pursuant to the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 28,
1982 and in compliance therewith in conducting a factual determination
of who are the persons or what are the entities involved and the clearly
specified areas covered by their contracts, Judge Villalon, after
conducting hearings, submitted to the appellate court in her 1st
Indorsement dated April 30, 1982, stating that “it is definite that
there are admittedly no areas covered by any existing lease contract
executed by the plaintiff Municipality in favor of entities and/or
persons before November 15, 1979 within the contemplation of the Order
dated January 8, 1981 which order has ordered the dissolution of the
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction dated November 15, 1979 issued
by then retired Hon. Judge Augusto Saroca for reasons set forth in the
Order.”
Acting upon the above report of Judge Villalon, the Court of Appeals
promulgated its Resolution dated July 7, 1982, resolving that “in view
of the above, the partial temporary restraining order has become
ineffective for having then become moot and academic. WHEREFORE, the
motion filed by private respondent is hereby granted (Motion Ex-Parte
for Total Lifting of Partial Restraining Order). The Partial Temporary
Restraining Order issued on December 24, 1981 is hereby lifted and set
aside.
Two other petitions for certiorari were also filed with the
Court of Appeals assailing the October 8, 1982 Order of Judge Villalon
which ordered the issuance of a writ of execution and implementation of
the Order of January 8, 1981, the first being CA-G.R. No. 15033
entitled “Spouses Lydia Terrado and Martin Rosario, et al. vs. Hon.
Felicidad Carandang-Villalon, et al.,” filed October 18, 1982 and the
second, CA-G.R. No. 13175, “Spouses Lydia Terrado, et al. vs. Hon.
Felicidad Carandang-Villalon, et al.” dated October 9, 1981. CA-G.R.
No. 15033 was dismissed on March 22, 1983, while CA-G.R. No. 13175 on
November 5, 1981.
The five (5) cases relating to the same subject matter, which are
CA-G.R. No. 15033-SP, CA-G.R. 14501-SP, CA-G.R. 13353-SP, CA-G.R. No.
13175-SP and CA-G.R. No. 12586-SP, were then consolidated in the
decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated March 22, 1983.
The dismissal of the petition in CA-G.R. No. 13175 and the issuance of
the alias writ of execution and possession issued by respondent Judge
Villalon in Civil Case No. D-5118 is now elevated to Us in G.R. No.
58794.
Likewise, the decision of the appellate court dismissing the petition in
CA-G.R. No. 15033-SP and the Order issued by the trial court dated
January 8, 1981 have been raised to Us in G.R. No. 64489. Both
petitions at bar, G.R. No. 58794 and G.R. No. 64489, have been
consolidated per Our Resolution of August 24, 1983.
The records of the petition before Us in G.R. No. 64489 disclose that
upon written request of Judge Felicidad Carandang-Villalon that she be
relieved from taking further cognizance of Civil Case No. SCC-648
(D-5118) entitled “Geruncio Lacuesta, et al. vs. The Municipality of
Bayambang, the Supreme Court in its Resolution en banc dated June 7,
1983 granted the request of the Judge and directed the Clerk of Court of
the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan to transfer the records of the case
to the Clerk of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City for
raffling among the two branches thereat. Accordingly, Judge
Carandang-Villalon issued an Order dated June 17, 1983 directing the
Stenographer who took the proceedings 30 days to make complete
transcript of the same and the Officer-in-Charge of the court to prepare
the voluminous exhibits and thereafter effect the transmittal of the
full records of the case. Notwithstanding her relief, the same Judge
issued a further order dated September 2, 1983 commanding the Sheriff
and the Commanding Officer of the 153rd PC Company to restore defendant
Lacuesta and his men to possession of all the fisheries and areas
covered by his contract pursuant to the Order of the court dated October
8, 1982. This Order was implemented according to the Sheriff’s Return
dated September 20, 1983.
Through the maze and muddle of this protracted legal controversy, it is
plain and clear that the complaints and petitions including all legal
incidents and motions filed in the trial court, the appellate court and
before this Tribunal are traceable in origin to the enactment and
implementation of Municipal Ordinance No. 8, series of 1974, of the
Municipality of Bayambang, Pangasinan, establishing the Bayambang
Fishery & Hunting Park and Municipal Watershed covering the
so-called Mangabul Fisheries. As stated in Section 3 of the Ordinance,
the purposes of the Park are: 1. To attract tourists to Bayambang and
thus increase the income of the municipality and create new employment
and new sources of income for the people; 2. To restore and conserve
the natural environment of the area by means of reforestation of the
forest or timberland reserved, thru engineering works, and other means
within the Ipd-92 area; 3. To restore or improve, conserve and develop
the fisheries, zones, and exploit the fish resources of all the
fisheries therein; 4. To supply agro-industrial enterprises that may be
established in Bayambang with raw materials from the area; and 5. To
provide sports and recreation facilities and wholesome sports and
recreational activities for the people.
Further, under the Ordinance, the Municipality designated, appointed
and constituted private respondent Lacuesta as Manager-Administrator for
a period of twenty-five (25) years, renewable for another twenty-five
(25) years upon mutual agreement (Section 4). Among the powers, duties
and obligations of the Manager-Administrator are: 1. To reforest with
woods or economic value all the timberland portions indicated in Plan
Ipd-92 and those that need to be reforested for ecological purposes; 2.
To stock the forest with wildlife or economic value, protect the
forest products and wildlife and regulate their multiplication in
accordance with existing laws; 3. To deepen the fisheries, swamps and
tributary streams by dredging, employing modern scientific and
technological methods to restore or improve and develop the fisheries to
increase the fees yield; 4. To conduct and regulate sports fishing and
hunting in the park and collect fees therefrom; 5. To use or dispose
of the fisheries portion in accordance with the general law on municipal
waters; 6. To establish in a suitable site within the park a fishing
and hunting camp to be called “Camp Imelda”. In Section 7 of the
Ordinance, the Manager-Administrator shall pay to the municipal
government the sum equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the annual gross
income derived from all fees charged for fishing and hunting in the park
and entry into Camp Imelda, from the sale of forest products, wild
games and fish from the area, but not less than P200,000.00.
In accordance with the Ordinance, a Contract of Management and
Administration was executed by the Municipality, represented by its
Municipal Mayor as the Usufructuary and Atty. Geruncio Lacuesta as the
Manager-Administrator, setting forth therein the terms and conditions
laid down in the Ordinance as well as the mode and manner of the
payment of the sum of P200,000.00 annually due to the Municipality
including the posting of a surety bond and other details of the
management and administration of the fisheries by the
Manager-Administrator, which contract was executed on January 28, 1975
at Bayambang, Pangasinan.
Thus, the validity or legality of the Municipal Ordinance in question is
the crucial and vital issue that must be resolved once and for all to
put an end to this raging litigation that has become the tug-of-war
between the Municipality and Lacuesta, together with other interested
parties, over the vast and rich fishing grounds. In resolving said
issue and ultimately the very root of the conflict, the following
undisputed facts are controlling and decisive: 1. That Municipal
Ordinance No. 8 has been disapproved by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources; and 2. That private respondent has since died as
shown in the Return of the Postmaster of Bayambang as noted in Our
Resolution of July 2, 1984.
1. Ordinance No. 8, having been submitted to the Provincial Board
of Pangasinan and approved by it by virtue of Resolution No. 171 dated
October 11, 1974, the same was submitted to the Secretary of
Agriculture & Natural Resources as required by Section 4 of Act No.
4003, The Fisheries Act, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 471 passed
June 16, 1939, and further amended by RA No. 659 approved June 16, 1951,
thus:“Sec. 4. Instructions, orders, rules and regulations. – The
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall from time to time issue
instructions, orders, rules and regulations consistent with this Act, as
may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the provisions
thereof and for the conduct of proceedings arising under such
provisions; and all licenses, permits, leases and contracts issued,
granted or made herein shall be subject to the same.
All ordinances, rules or regulations pertaining to fishing or fisheries
promulgated or enacted by provincial boards, municipal boards or
councils, or municipal district councils shall be submitted to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce for approval and shall have full
force and effect unless notice in writing of their disapproval is
communicated by the secretary to the board or council concerned within
thirty days after submission of the ordinance, rule, or regulation.”
From the evidence on record, it appears that a Master Plan for the
Bayambang Fishing and Hunting Park and Municipal Watershed (Mangabul
Fisheries Reservation) of Atty. Geruncio Lacuesta, Manager-Administrator
of the said park, was submitted to the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources. In the Indorsement of the Director of Fisheries &
Aquatic Resources to the Secretary, Department of Natural Resources, the
Comments, among others, state: “2. Records of this bureau show that
Resolution No. 171, s. 174 of the Provincial Board of Pangasinan,
embodying Resolution No. 35, s. 1974, enacting Ordinance No. 8, s. 1974
of the Municipal Council of Bayambang, Pangasinan and Resolution No. 24,
s. 1975 of the same council requesting reconsideration and
rectification of the 5th Indorsement of that department dated April 4,
1975, were returned DISAPPROVED and denied, respectively, by the
Secretary of Natural Resources to the Municipal Council of Bayambang,
Pangasinan.”
Upon the recommendation of the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources that “In the light, therefore, of the foregoing, the Master
Plan for the Bayambang Fishing and Hunting Park and Municipal Watershed
(Mangabul Fisheries Reservation), insofar as fishing and fisheries
thereat are concerned should not be given due course and should be
DISAPPROVED in the absence of adequate provisions thereon to the effect
that the grant of the exclusive fishery privileges within its municipal
waters shall be granted by the municipal council (now sangguniang bayan)
to the highest bidder conformable with a fishery ordinance duly
approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources, pursuant to Sections 4,
67 and 69 of Act No. 4003, as amended (now sections 4, 29 and 30 of
Presidential Decree No. 704),” the Secretary of the Department of
Natural Resources disapproved the Master Plan.
The legal basis for the disapproval of the Ordinance No. 8 and the
Master Plan mentioned above is clear and explicit in Sections 4, 67 and
69 of Act No. 4003 as amended by PD 704, Revising and Consolidating All
Laws and Decrees Affecting Fishing and Fisheries. These Sections
provide:
“Sec. 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau. – The Bureau shall have
jurisdiction and responsibility in the management, conservation,
development, protection, utilization and disposition of all fishery and
aquatic resources of the country except municipal waters which shall be
under the municipal or city government concerned: Provided, That fish
pens and seaweed culture in municipal centers shall be under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau: Provided, further, That all municipal or
city ordinances and resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any
disposition thereunder shall be submitted to the Secretary for
appropriate action and shall have full force and effect only upon his
approval. The Bureau shall also have the authority to regulate and
supervise the production, capture and gathering of fish and
fishery/aquatic products.
The Bureau shall prepare and implement, upon approval of the Fishery
Industry Development Council, a Fishery Industry Development Program.”
“Section 29. Grant of Fishery Privileges. – A municipal or city
council, conformably with an ordinance duly approved by the Secretary
pursuant to section 4 hereof, may: (a) grant to the highest qualified
bidder the exclusive privilege of construction and operating fish
corrals, oyster culture beds, or of gathering “bangus” fry, or the fry
of other species in municipal waters for a period not exceeding five (5)
years: x x x”“Section 30. Municipal concessions and leases concerning
fisheries. – No lease or concession granted by a municipal or city
council under authority of an ordinance approved pursuant to section 4
hereof, concerning fishing or fisheries in streams, lakes, rivers,
inland and/or municipal waters, shall be valid and enforceable unless
the Secretary, upon recommendation of the Director, approves the same.”
Indeed, the Ordinance is clearly against the provisions of the law for
it granted exclusive fishery privileges to the private respondent
without benefit of public bidding. Under the Fisheries Act, the
Municipality may not delegate to a private individual as
Manager-Administrator to “use or dispose of the fisheries portion in
accordance with the general law on municipal waters” nor to charge fees
for fishing and hunting in the park, much less sell forest products,
wild games and fish from the area.
Neither can the Municipality grant the exclusive privilege of fishing
for a period more than five (5) years, whereas in the instant case, the
period granted the Manager-Administrator was for twenty-five (25) years,
renewable for another twenty-five years.
Moreover, under the specific provision of Act No. 4041, there is the
proviso that the timber and other forest products therein shall be
placed under the administration and control of the forest service so
that insofar as the ordinance relates to the timber and other forest
products and the reforestation of the timberland portions indicated in
Plan Ipd-92 including the powers, duties and responsibilities of the
Manager-Administrator affecting the forestry portions are violative of
Act No. 4041.
It is of no moment that at the pre-trial hearing of Civil Case No.
SCC-648 (which was transferred to Branch III, CFI Dagupan and docketed
as D-5118) the parties had admitted the legality of Ordinance No. 8.
The issue as to the legality of Ordinance No. 8 is not a question of
fact that the parties may stipulate and agree at the pre-trial hearing
of the case which is for annulment of the contract under Ordinance No.
8. Such is a question of law for if the Ordinance is illegal and
contrary to law, the contract executed in pursuance thereto is
consequently illegal. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory
or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself
authorizes their validity. (Art. 5, New Civil Code).
From Our jurisprudence, We cite a number of cases ruling that a public
bidding is essential to the validity of the grant of exclusive privilege
of fishery to a private party, thus:
“The law (Sec. 2323 of the Revised Administrative Code) requires
that when the exclusive privilege of fishery or the right to conduct a
fish-breeding ground is granted to a private party, the same shall be
let to the highest bidder in the same manner as is being done in
exploiting a ferry, a market or a slaughterhouse belonging to the
municipality (See Municipality of San Luis vs. Ventura, et al., 56 Phil.
329). The requirement of competitive bidding is for the purpose of
inviting competition and to guard against favoritism, fraud and
corruption in letting of fishery privileges (See 3 McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations, 2nd Ed., p. 1170; Harles Gaslight Co. vs. New York, 83
N.Y. 309; and 2 Dillon, Municipal Corporations, p. 1219)” (San Diego
vs. The Municipality of Naujan, Province of Mindoro, 107 Phil. 118).“It may thus be restated that the law that governs the award of
fishery privileges in municipal waters is the provisions of Section 67
and 69 of Act No. 4003, as amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 115 and
471. The provisions of Sections 2321, 2323 and 2319 of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917 have thereby been modified by Act 4003, as
amended. Under the applicable law the Municipal Council may lease
fishery privileges for a period not exceeding five years to the highest
bidder in a public bidding held, where the call for bid had specified
the period for the lease.” (San Buenaventura vs. Municipality of San
Jose, Camarines Sur, et al., 121 Phil. 101, 114).“The Municipal Council cannot extend the period of lease once it
had been fixed on the basis of the period provided in the call for bids.
In the lease of fishery privileges for a period not exceeding five
years the previous approval of the provincial Board is not necessary.
If the lease is for a period of more than five years, but not exceeding
ten years, the previous approval of the Provincial Board is necessary.
If the lease is for a period exceeding ten years, but not more than
twenty years, the prior approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources is necessary. In all cases the lease must be based on
a competitive public bidding.” (San Buenaventura vs. Municipality of
San Jose, Camarines Sur, et al., supra, p. 115).
While the respondent appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 12586-SP made the pronouncement that:
“Besides, Sec. 4, Act No. 4003 (which was then the law in force
before being superseded by PD 704 on May 16, 1975) provides that an
ordinance affecting fishing and fisheries ‘shall have full force and
effect unless notice in writing of (its) disapproval is communicated by
the Secretary to the Board of council concerned, within thirty days
after submission of the ordinance.’ The ordinance was submitted for
approval on January 2, 1975 and the disapproval came only 102 days after
such submission, on April 14, 1975. Paragraph (a) of the pre-trial
stipulation (Annex “6” of Respondent’s Comment) states that ‘the said
ordinance was submitted to the then Secretary of Natural Resources who
disapproved the ordinance, insofar as fishing and fisheries are
concerned after 30 days from submission,'”
We cannot sustain the above holding in view of Our holding in the case of Nepomuceno, et al. vs. Ocampo, et al., supra,
wherein We held that the only purpose in the enactment of Republic Act
659 which required the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to
approve municipal ordinances pertaining to fishing or fisheries within
30 days after submission of the ordinance, rule or regulation is simply
to expedite prompt action by the Department Chief concerned. Since
Ordinance No. 8 granted fishery privileges exclusively to the private
respondent without benefit of public bidding and for a period exceeding
five (5) years, the said ordinance and the contract of management
executed in accordance therewith were null and void ab initio, such that
the failure of the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources to
disapprove the same within 30 days from its submission does not render
validity to the illegal legislation of the municipal council nor to the
contract executed under the same.
From the foregoing conclusion that the ordinance is illegal and void,
per force the contract of management and administration between the
Municipality and Lacuesta is likewise null and void. It also follows
that the complaint filed by Lacuesta for prohibition in Civil Case No.
516 to enjoin the Municipal Council of Bayambang from leasing the
Mangabul Fisheries upon public bidding as authorized in its Resolution
No. 31, series of 1977 is without legal basis and merit for Lacuesta has
no right or interest under the void ordinance and contract. The suit
must be dismissed and We hereby order its immediate dismissal.
2. We have noted earlier the death of Lacuesta in Our Resolution
of July 2, 1984. His death is an irreversible fact that throws an
entirely new bearing on the legal controversy at hand. For
essentially, the contract of management and administration between the
Municipality and Lacuesta is one of agency whereby a person binds
himself to render some service or to do something in representation or
on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.
(Article 1868, New Civil Code). Here in the case at bar, Lacuesta bound
himself as Manager-Administrator of the Bayambang Fishing &
Hunting Park and Municipal Watershed to render service or perform duties
and responsibilities in representation or on behalf of the Municipality
of Bayambang, with the consent or authority of the latter pursuant to
Ordinance No. 8. Under Article 1919, New Civil Code, agency is
extinguished by the death of the agent. His rights and obligations
arising from the contract are not transmittable to his heirs. (Art.
1311, New Civil Code).3. Petitioners in both cases before Us, G.R. No. 58794 and G.R.
No. 64489, anchor their claims to certain portions of the Mangabul
Fisheries which they allege to have won in public bidding under the
authority of Resolution No. 31, series of 1977 of the Municipal Council
of Bayambang which leased the fisheries for a four-year period. The
period has already lapsed, hence their fishing privilege is no longer
effective as of June 30, 1981. To restore and place petitioners in
possession of the fisheries would be an extension of their four-year
period lease which is not authorized under the ordinance cited above.
Nonetheless, the assailed order of Judge Villalon dated September 3,
1983 restoring possession of the fisheries to Lacuesta and his men
which was issued after her relief from the case upon her own request is
clearly irregular and without authority. There should be and there
ought to be full obedience and compliance by a subordinate court of the
orders and resolutions of this Court. There cannot be any iota of
discipline much less efficiency in the administration of justice if the
lower echelons in the judicial heirarchy can freely act as they wish
inspite of their relief. This should be a stern warning to all judges
and personnel in all the courts.
We brush aside the procedural aspects raised in the petitions before Us
and in the interest of public welfare and speedy administration of
justice, avoiding further multiplicity of suits, We consider the
intrinsic merits of the controversy which as We pointed out previously,
rest on the validity of the Municipal Ordinance in question. Thus, in
sum and substance, We hereby pronounce the nullity of Ordinance No. 8,
series of 1974 of the Municipal Council of Bayambang, Pangasinan and the
contract of management and supervision executed between the
Municipality of Bayambang and Geruncio Lacuesta as Manager-Administrator
of the Bayambang Fishery & Hunting Park and Municipal Watershed.
Since Ordinance No. 8 and the contract of management and supervision are
both null and void, the Alias Writ of Execution and Possession dated
November 6, 1981 and the Order of October 8, 1982 for the issuance of
writ of execution and possession to place and restore possession of the
Mangabul Fisheries, of portions thereof or fisheries therein to
Geruncio Lacuesta, his agents, men and/or representatives under the said
contract and by virtue of the ordinance are, including the writ also
issued on October 8, 1982, without legal force and effect.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Alias Writ of Execution and
Possession issued November 6, 1981 and assailed in G.R. No. 58794, as
well as the Order and Writ dated October 8, 1982 raised in G.R. No.
64489, are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., (Chairman), on official leave.
Aquino, J., in the result.
Abad Santos, J., reserves his vote.