Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
November 2! "#$
%&R& No& '(")#*+
,-R%-N-A -& ,.A& .E '-M/OCO! petitioner(appellant!
vs&
T0E .-RECTOR O1 COMMERCE! respon2ent(appellee&
Rafael '& Arce3a for petitioner(appellant&
Office of the Solicitor %eneral for respon2ent(appellee&
MA4A'-NTA'! /&5
This case! file2 as a petition for 2eclarator6 relief in the Court of 1irst -nstance of Manila!
involves the interpretation of Section 2 of the %eneral Bon2e2 7arehousin3 Act 8Act No&
9:9 as amen2e2 b6 Republic Act No& 2*);! specificall6 in relation to the rice millin3
business of petitioner(appellant& Certain facts <ere stipulate2 in the Court belo<! an2 the
follo<in3 summari=e2 statement in the 2ecision appeale2 from is accepte2 b6 both
parties5
-t appears that sometime prior to March 22! "$+! petitioner an2 her husban2! the late
Bonifacio T& 'im>oco! <ere the o<ners of a rice mill commonl6 calle2 ?@is@isan? an2
<ere en3a3e2 in the business of millin3 pala6 belon3in3 to their customers for the
purpose of removin3 its hull an2 convertin3 it into rice& 8p& 9+! RA;&
On /ul6 9"! "$2 Bonifacio T& 'im>oco 2ie2! leavin3 the millin3 business in the han2s of
his survivin3 spouse! the petitioner in this case& The petitioner continue2 in the business!
<hich prior to the 2eath of her husban2! <as mana3e2 b6 the latter <ithout! ho<ever!
rene<in3 the license <hich accor2in3 to EAhibit ?A? eApire2 on .ecember 9"! "$+&
Since then an2 up to the present! the petitioner refuse2 to secure a license from the
Bureau of Commerce claimin3 that her business 2oes not fall <ithin the provisions of Act
9:9 as amen2e2 b6 Republic Act 2*)&
1rom the testimon6 of the petitioner an2 from the stipulation of facts entere2 into b6 the
parties! as <ell as the eAhibits presente2 b6 the petitioner! it appears that the petitioner
o<ns a rice mill of the semicono t6pe& The facilities of the rice mill are open to the public
in the sense that an6bo26 <ho <ants his pala6 to be mille2 an2 converte2 into rice ma6
2eliver the same to the rice mill pa6in3 P+&*+ per cavan of pala6 for the services of the
petitioner in millin3 it& The mill itself is <ithin a buil2in3 <hich the petitioner calls a
?camali3? about ten meters lon3! ei3ht meters <i2e an2 five meters hi3h& The ?camali3?
is totall6 enclose2 partl6 b6 steelmattin3! partl6 b6 <oo2 an2 partl6 b6 3alvani=e2 iron
sheets&
1rom the stipulation of facts as <ell as from the testimon6 of appellant the trial Court
further foun2 that there <ere occasions <hen her customers brou3ht more pala6 than
coul2 be mille2 in one 2a6! <hereupon the6 <oul2 leave the same in the custo26 of
appellant! pile2 insi2e the ?camali3? to a<ait its turn to be mille2B that sometimes the
pala6 thus left in her possession amounte2 to as much as "++ cavans! an2 at other times
as little as "+ cavansB that no char3e <as ma2e b6 appellant for thus @eepin3 the pala6!
the arran3ement bein3! in accor2ance <ith the customs of the place! a favor 2one to the
customersB an2 that! on the other han2! appellant <as also benefite2 b6 such arran3ement!
for unless she acce2e2 thereto the customers mi3ht ta@e their pala6 for millin3 to her
competitors&
Section 2 of the la< in Cuestion provi2es5
As use2 in this Act! the term ?7arehouse? shall be 2eeme2 to mean ever6 buil2in3!
structure! or other protecte2 inclosure in <hich rice is @ept for stora3e& The term ?rice?
shall be 2eeme2 to mean either pala6! in bun2les! or in 3rains! or clean rice! or both&
?Person? inclu2es a corporation or partnership or t<o or more persons havin3 a >oint or
common interestB ?<arehouseman? means a person en3a3e2 in the business of receivin3
rice for stora3eB an2 ?receipt? means an6 receipt issue2 b6 a <arehouseman for rice
2elivere2 to him& 1or the purpose of this Act! the business of receivin3 rice for stora3e
shall inclu2e 8"; an6 contract or transaction <herein the <arehouseman is obli3ate2 to
return the ver6 same rice 2elivere2 to him or pa6 its valueB 82; an6 contract or transaction
<herein the rice 2elivere2 is to be mille2 for an2 on account of the o<ner thereofB 89; an6
contract or transaction <herein the rice 2elivere2 is commin3le2 <ith rice 2elivere2 b6 or
belon3in3 to other persons! an2 the <arehouseman is obli3ate2 to return rice of the same
@in2 or pa6 its value&
The .irector of Commerce rule2 that appellantDs rice millin3 business falls un2er the la<
>ust Cuote2! reCuire2 her to secure the correspon2in3 rene<al license an2 starte2 steps for
her prosecution in vie< of her refusal to 2o so& The move! it seems! <as subseCuentl6
hel2 in abe6ance upon the filin3 of the petition herein&
The trial court uphel2 the .irector of Commerce an2 rule2 that the la< in Cuestion is
applicable in this case& Appellant submits! in substance! that the test to 2etermine the
applicabilit6 of Act No& 9:9 as amen2e2 is <hether or not she is en3a3e2 in the business
of receivin3 pala6 for stora3eB that the clause in section 2 thereof <hich refers to ?an6
contract or transaction <herein the rice! 2elivere2 is to be mille2 for an2 on account of
the o<ners? must be un2erstoo2 in relation to the sub>ect matter of the statute as
eApresse2 in its title! namel6! ?An Act to Re3ulate the Business of Receivin3 Commo2it6
for Stora3e?B an2 that since her business is the millin3 of pala6! the 2eliver6 thereof to her
is merel6 inci2ental to such business an2 2oes not constitute stora3e <ithin the meanin3
of the statute&
Section 2! ho<ever! is too clear to permit of an6 eAercise in construction or semantics& -t
2oes not stop at the bare use of the <or2 ?stora3e!? but eApressl6 provi2es that an6
contract or transaction <herein the pala6 2elivere2 is to be mille2 for an2 on account of
the o<ner shall be 2eeme2 inclu2e2 in the business of receivin3 rice for stora3e for the
purpose of the Act& -n other <or2s! it is enou3h that the pala6 is 2elivere2! even if onl6 to
have it mille2& .eliver6 connotes transfer of ph6sical possession or custo26B an2 it ma6
in2ee2 be seriousl6 2oubte2 if the concept of ?stora3e? un2er the la< <oul2 cover a
situation <here one merel6 utili=es the services of the mill but @eeps the pala6 un2er his
ph6sical control all steps of the <a6& But in this case it is a fact that pala6 is 2elivere2 to
appellant an2 sometimes pile2 insi2e her ?camali3? in appreciable Cuantities! to <ait for
its turn in the millin3 process& This is precisel6 the situation covere2 b6 the statute&
7e a3ree <ith 0is 0onor! the trial /u23e! <hen he sai25 ?There is a reason for the
inclusion of the business of the petitioner <ithin the operation of Act 9:9 as amen2e2 b6
Republic Act 2*)& The main intention of the la<ma@er is to 3ive protection to the o<ner
of the commo2it6 a3ainst possible abuses 8an2 <e mi3ht a22 ne3li3ence; of the person to
<hom the ph6sical control of his properties is 2elivere2&?
This is not the first time this Cuestion has come before Us& -t <as raise2 in the case of
People vs& ,ersola! %&R& No& '($)+)! March 2)! "$:! <here this Court! spea@in3
throu3h Mr& /ustice Roberto Concepcion! sai25
At an6 rate! <henever a rice mill en3a3e2 in the business of hullin3 pala6 for others! is
house2 in a ?camarin? li@e that of appellant herein! the @eepin3 of pala6 or rice therein
follo<s as a necessar6 conseCuence& This is true! even if the 3rains <ere receive2 therein
eAclusivel6 for millin3 purposes& 0ence! one <a6 or the other! there is a form of stora3e!
the 2uration of <hich ma6 var6! 2epen2in3 upon circumstances& -n an6 event! the ricemill
operator is responsible for the pala6 or rice! <hile the same is in his possession! an2
public polic6 or public interest 2eman2s that the ri3hts of the o<ners of the commo2it6
E <hich is our main staple E be 2ul6 protecte2& 0ence! the nee2 of securin3 the license
prescribe2 in Act No& 9:9! in or2er that the .irector of Commerce coul2 2etermine the
con2itions un2er <hich the mill ma6 be authori=e2 to operate! conformabl6 <ith the
ob>ectives of sai2 le3islation! an2 the amount of the bon2 to be reCuire2 for the protection
of the people <ho avail themselves of its services&
Appellant conten2s that the inclusion of the business of millin3 pala6 in Act No& 9:9
infrin3es the constitutional man2ate that no la< shall embrace more than one sub>ect
<hich shall be eApresse2 in the title thereof& 7e believe the sub>ect matter of sai2 Act as
eApresse2 in its title! namel6! the re3ulation of the business of receivin3 commo2it6 for
stora3e! is sufficientl6 broa2 to cover the business of millin3 pala6 <here the pala6 is
2elivere2 to the mill operator an2 @ept in a construction <hich serves the purpose of a
<arehouse! as in this case& Appellant sa6s her ?camali3? is neither a2eCuate nor suitable
for stora3e& But the ina2eCuac6 of the construction insofar as the safet6 of the pala6 is
concerne2 is not a vali2 reason to remove it from the operation of the statute! for
other<ise the ver6 fact of non(compliance <ith the le3al reCuirements in this respect
<oul2 be its o<n eAcuse from the liabilities impose2&
The 2ecision appeale2 from is affirme2! <ith costs&
Ben3=on! C&/&! Bautista An3elo! Concepcion! Re6es! /&B&'&! .i=on! Re3ala! Ben3=on! /&P&!
an2 Fal2ivar! //&! concur&