[G.R. No. 104988. June 18, 1996] MUSTANG LUMBER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.

FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and ATTY. VINCENT A. ROBLES, Chief, Special Actions and Investigation Division, DENR, respondents. [G.R. No. 106424. June 18, 1996] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 172, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and RI CHUY PO, respondents. [G.R. No. 123784. June 18, 1996] MUSTANG LUMBER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. VINCENT A. ROBLES, Chief, Special Actions and Investigation Division, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), ATTY. NESTOR V. GAPUSAN, TIRSO P. PARIAN, JR., and FELIPE H. CALLORINA, JR., respondents. FACTS: The Special Actions and Investigations of the DENR organized a team of foresters, and policemen to conduct surveillance at the lumberyard of the petitioner in Valenzuela, MM, acting on the information that a huge stockpile of narra fitches, shorts and slabs were seen inside. In the course thereof the team seized the truck together with its cargo of lauan and almaciga lumber. Upon coming out from the lumberyard because the driver could not produce the required invoices and transport documents they impounded them at DENR compound at Quezon City. Later, the team was able to secure a search warrant from executive judge Osorio of RTC and they were able to seized from the petitioners lumberyard four truckloads of narra shorts and trimmings and slabs and shorts of various species including almaciga and supa. A complaint against the petitioners president and general manager Pi Chuy Po, for violation of Sec. 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277. The accused in the said criminal case filed a Motion to Quash and/or to Suspend Proceedings on the ground that the information does not charge an offense, for possession of lumber, as opposed to timber is not penalized in Sec. 68 of P.D. 705 as amended. Is is neither a timber nor other forest product. ISSUE: WON Lumber is included in Sec. 68, P.D. 705 as amended and possession thereof without the required legal documents is penalized therein. HELD:

Relying on the definition of lumber by Webster, viz., timber or logs, especia lly after being prepared for the market and by the Random Dictionary of the English Language, vis., wood especially when suitable or adapted for various building purposes, the respondent Court held that since wood is included in the definition of forest product in sec. 3 (q) of P.D. no. 705, as amended, lumber is necessarily included in sec. 68 under the team forest product. Hence, possession thereof without the required legal documents is prohibited and penalized under Sec. 68, P.D. No. 705 as amended. The revised forestry Code contains no definition of either timber or lumber while the former is included in forest products as defined in Sec. 3 (q), the latter is found in par. (aa) of same section in the definition of Processing Plants. This simply means that lumber is a processed log or processed forest raw material. Clearly, the Code uses the term lumber in its ordinary or common usage.

[G.R. No. 111107. January 10, 1997] LEONARDO A. PAAT et. al., vs. COURT OF APPEALS et. al., FACTS: On May 19, 1989 the truck of Victoria de Guzman while on its way to Bulacan from San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan, was seized by the DENR personnel because the driver could not produce the required documents for the forest products found concealed in the truck. Petitioner Jovito Layugan(CENRO) issued an order of confiscation of the truck and gave the owner thereof fifteen (15) days within which to submit an explanation why the truck should not be forfeited. Private respondents failed to submit the required explanation. Regional Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan of DENR ordered the forfeiture of the truck invoking Section 68-A of Presidential Decree No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277. Subsequently, a suit for replevin, was filed by the private respondents against petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan which issued a writ ordering the return of the truck to private respondents. Petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan filed a motion to dismiss with but trial court denied such motion. Their MR was likewise denied, hence a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioners with the respondent Court of Appeals which sustained the trial courts order. Hence this petition. ISSUE: 1. Without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, may an action for replevin prosper to recover a movable property which is the subject matter of an administrative forfeiture proceeding in the DENR pursuant to Section 68-A of P. D. 705, as amended, entitled The Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines? 2. Are the Secretary of DENR and his representatives empowered to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products in favor of the government? HELD: 1. No. This Court in a long line of cases has consistently held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every

opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before courts judicial power can be sought. Moreover, it is important to point out that the enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. By the very nature of its function, the DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The assumption by the trial court, therefore, of the replevin suit filed by private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of the administrative agencys prerogative.

2.

Yes. Sec. 68-A of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277 provides that;

SECTION 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department or His Duly Authorized Representative To Order Confiscation. In all cases of violation of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly authorized representative, may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations and policies on the matter. It is, thus, clear from the foregoing provision that the Secretary and his duly authorized representatives are given the authority to confiscate and forfeit any conveyances utilized in violating the Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations. The only limitation is that it should be made in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or policies on the matter

Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc.Vs. The Deputy Executive Secretary,Et. Al G.R. No. 79538. October 18, 1990 FACTS: Petitioner sent a letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources(now the DENR) for the reinstatement of its timber license agreement which was cancelled in August 1983 during the Marcos administration alleging that he entered into an agrrement for the exclusive license to cut,remove and gather timber withn a specified portion of public forest but by virtue of a memorandum order stopping all logging operations ,the logging concession of petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires were cancelled. Acting on such letter request, the Ministry ruled that that a timber license was not a contract within the due process clause of the Constitution, but only a privilege which could be withdrawn whenever public interest or welfare so demands, and that petitioner was not discriminated against in view of the fact that it was among ten concessionaires whose licenses were revoked in 1983. Motion for reconsideration of petitioner was denied prompting him to file a petition for Certiorari with the Suprem Court. ISSUE: Did the Ministry of Natural Resources err in ruling that A timber license is just a mere contract? HELD: No. Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause as mentioned in Sections 3 and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended.The grant of licenses or permits to exploit the country's timber resources, if done in contravention of the procedure outlined in the law, or as a result of fraud and undue influence exerted on department officials, is indicative of an arbitrary and whimsical exercise of the State's power to regulate the use and exploitation of forest resources.