Limjoco v. Director of Commerce Facts: Mr. & Mrs.

L owned a rice mill (kiskisan) and were engaged in the business of milling palay. Such kiskisan was licensed under the General Bonded Warehouse Act. However, when Mr. L died and Mrs. L took over the management, she did not renew her license, claiming that her business does not fall within the purview of such Act inasmuch as Mrs. L did not charge anything for keeping the palay (it was merely a favor done for the customers). She likewise alleged that her camalig was neither adequate nor suitable for storage. When Mrs. L refused to renew her license despite the ruling of the Director of Commerce that her rice milling business falls within the Act, the Director filed a petition for declaratory relief with the CFI. Ruling: Sec.2 of the General Bonded Warehouse Act is too clear to permit of any exercise in construction or semantics. It is enough that the palay be delivered to Mrs. L, even if only for milling, for the Act to apply. The alleged inadequacy of the construction for storage insofar as the safety of the palay is concerned is not a valid reason to remove it from the operation of the statute. Otherwise, the very fact of non-compliance with the legal requirements in this respect would be its own excuse from the liabilities imposed.