TANO VS GOVERNOR SOCRATES [August 21, 1997]

FACTS:The petition filed was one for Certiorari, Injunction With Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Prayer for TRO. But the SC treated is as a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.

Dec. 15, 1992: Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Puerto Prinsesa City enacted Ordinance No. 15-92: An Ordinance Banning the Shipment of All Live Fish and Lobster Outside Puerto Prinsesa City from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998.

To implement said city ordinance, Acting City Mayor issued Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993 dates January 22, 1993: An Ordinance Requiring Any Person Engaged or Intending to engage in any Business, Trade, Occupation, Calling or Profession or Having in His Possession Any of the Articles for which a Permit is Required to be had to Obtain first a Mayors Permit.

On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan enacted Resolution No. 33: A Resolution Prohibiting the Catching, Gathering, Possessing, Buying, Selling and Shipment of Live Marine Coral Dwelling Aquatic Organisms.

It also enacted Ordinance No. 2 containing the same sentiments.The Respondents implemented the said ordinances depriving all the fishermen of the whole Province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Prinsesa of their only means of livelihood and the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan and other marine merchants from performing their lawful occupation.

Petitioners, A. Tano, B. Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, Felipe Ongonion Jr., Robert Lim and Virginia Lim were all charged criminally. Without seeking redress from the concerned local government units, petitioners filed this petition based on the following grounds:1. The Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade.2. Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor condition under which the Mayors permit could be granted or denied. It is the Mayor who has the absolute authority to determine whether or not to issue a permit3. The ordinances took away their right to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; 4. Ordinance No. 2 is null and void, the criminal cases based thereon against petitioners Tano and the others have to be dismissed.

Respondents defended the validity of the ordinances. Petitioners filed an Urgent Plea for the Immediate Issuance of a TRO. Granted, TRO was issued, TC handling the criminal cases were ordered to cease and desist from proceeding with the arraignment and pre-trial.Respondents did not file any comment of the petition. SC in its resolution resolved to give due course to the petition.

ISSUE: W/N the petition should prosper?

HELD:Dismiss the petition.There are two sets of petitioners in this case. The first set is being criminally charged for violating Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2 and City Ordinance No. 15-92.

The second set of petitioners is composed of fishermen, with the exception of Airline Shippers Association of Palawan an alleged private association of several marine merchants.

The first set of petitioners primary interest is to prevent the prosecution, trial and determination of the criminal cases until the constitutionality or legality of the Ordinances they alledly violated shall be resolved.The second sent of petitioners merely claim that they being fishermen or marine merchants, they would be adversely affected by the ordinances.

Re: FIRST SET OF PETITIONERS.The petition must fail on the ground of prematurity amounting to a lack of cause of action. There is no showing that the said petitioners, as the accused in the criminal cases, have filed motions to quash the informations therein and that the same were denied.

Re: SECOND SET OF PETITIONERSThe instant petition is obviously one for DECLARATORY RELIEF. As such, their petition must likewise fail, as the SC does not possess original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved, it being settled that the Court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over such petitions.