4. People of the Philippines vs.
Alfonso Dator & BENITO GENOL accused (Acquitted) PASTOR TELEN The doctrine is a relative one and its flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity and uniqueness of
Facts: Police officers confiscated pieces of lumber from an Isuzu cargo for failure of the driver, accused
Benito Genol, to show the required documents for the proper transport of the pieces of lumber consisting
of forty-one (41) pieces of Dita lumber and ten (10) pieces of Antipolo lumber with a total volume of
1,560.16 board feet.
Pastor Telen, owner of lumber, testified that the lumber will be used in renovating his residence. Boy
Leonor, who was the Officer in Charge of CENRO Maasin, Southern Leyte allegedly allowed Telen to cut
the aging Dita trees only. According to Telen, Leonor assured him that a written permit was not anymore
necessary before he could cut the Dita trees, which are considered soft lumber, from the private land of
his mother, provided the same would be used exclusively for the renovation of his house and that he shall
plant trees as replacement thereof, which he did by planting Gemelina seedlings. The trial court convicted
Pastor Telen of violation of Sec 68 of PD No. 705 which Telen appealed.
Issue: WON Legal Documents / Permit is still required for cutting/transporting the soft lumber.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
The fact of possession by the appellant of the subject lumber, as well as his subsequent failure to produce
the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations constitute criminal liability for
violation of Presidential Decree No. 705, Section 68.
The appellant stands charged with the crime of violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, a special statutory
law, and which crime is considered mala prohibita. In the prosecution for crimes that are considered mala
prohibita, the only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated. The motive or intention underlying
the act of the appellant is immaterial for the reason that his mere possession of the confiscated pieces of
lumber without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations gave rise to
his criminal liability.
Under the DENR Administrative Order No. 78, Series of 1987, a certification from the CENRO concerned
to the effect that the forest products came from a titled land or tax declared alienable and disposable
land must still be secured to accompany the shipment. This the appellant failed to do, thus, he is criminally
liable under Section 68 of PD No. 705 necessitating prior acquisition of permit and legal documents as
required under existing forest laws and regulations.
6. Leonardo Paat vs. Court of Appeals, et. Al.
FACTS: The truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman was seized by the DENR personnel while on
its way to Bulacan because the driver could not produce the required documents for the forest product
found concealed in the truck. Petitioner Jovito Layugan, CENRO ordered the confiscation of the truck and
required the owner to explain. Private respondents failed to submit required explanation. The DENR
Regional Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan sustained Layugans action for confiscation and ordered
the forfeiture of the truck. Private respondents brought the case to the DENR Secretary. Pending appeal,
private respondents filed a replevin case before the RTC against petitioner Layugan and Baggayan. RTC
granted the same. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case contending, inter alia, that private respondents
had no cause of action for their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied their
motion. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners aver that the trial court could not legally
entertain the suit for replevin because the truck was under administrative seizure proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not the instant case falls within the exception of the doctrine.
HELD: The Court held in the negative. The Court 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 processed 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. The premature invocation of court intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.
the factual and circumstantial settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded (1) when there is violation of
due process, (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question, (3) when the administrative action is
patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, (4) when there is estoppels on the part of the
administrative agency concerned, (5) when there is irreparable injury, (6) when the respondent is a
department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval
of the latter, (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable, (8) when
it would amount to nullification of a claim, (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case
proceedings, (10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when
there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
A suit for replevin cannot be sustained against the petitioners for the subject truck taken and retained by
them for administrative forfeiture proceedings in pursuant to Sections 68-A of OD 705, as amended.
Dismissal of the replevin suit for lack of cause of action in view of the private respondents failure to
exhaust administrative remedies should have been the proper course of action by the lower court instead
of assuming jurisdiction over the case and consequently issuing the writ ordering the return of the truck.
Issue: Whether or not the confiscation of the truck was valid.
Held: Yes. The suit for replevin is never intended as a procedural tool to question the orders of confiscation
and forfeiture issued by the DENR in pursuance to the authority given under P.D. 705, as amended. The
provision of Section 68 of P.D. 705 before its amendment by E.O. 277 and the provision of Section 1 of E.O.
No. 277 amending the aforementioned Section 68 could never be clearer.
-----------------------------------
Facts:
May19, 1989. The truck of Victoria de Guzman was seized by the DENR because the driver of the truck
was not able to produce the required documents for the forest products.
Jovitio Layugan, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO), issued an order
of confiscation of the truck and gave the owner 15 days to submit an explanation. Owner was not able to
sumbit an explanation and the order of the CENRO was enforced.
The issue was brought to the secretary of the DENR. While pending, the owner filed a suit for replevin
against the Layugan. Layugan filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the owner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. Trial court ruled in favor of the owner. CA sustained Trial Courts decision
Issue: W/ON the trial court has jurisdiction?
Held. 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. The
premature invocation of courts intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.
Mustang lumber v ca
La bugal blaan tribal association v ramos
Didpio eath-savers v gozun
Tano v socrates