Case Digest: Paat vs. CA

G.R. No. 111107

Leonardo Paat vs. CA

January 10, 1997

The truck of private respondent was seized and confiscated by the DENR because the driver could not produce the required documents for the forest products found concealed in the truck. Private respondents filed before the courts a suit for replevin (recovery of personal property) despite the pending administrative resolution. Private respondents contended that the DENR had no legal authority to seize the items and that said authority lies on the court as provided for in Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277.

RULING:

The Court 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. Private respondents could not say they were deprived of due process, knowing that an administrative proceeding is pending before the DENR, who was yet to render a resolution on the controversy.

The Court also ruled that private respondents miserably failed to prove the wrongful detention of the subject truck confiscated. It should be noted that the truck was seized by the petitioners because it was transporting forest products without the required permit of the DENR in manifest contravention of Section 68 of P.D.705 as amended by E.O 277.  Section 68-A of P.D. 705, as amended, unquestionably warrants the confiscation as well as the disposition by the Secretary of DENR or his duly authorized representatives of the conveyances used in violating the provision of forestry laws. Evidently, the continued possession or detention of the truck by the petitioners for administrative forfeiture proceeding is legally permissible, hence, no wrongful detention exists in the case at bar.

The Court clarifies that with the introduction of Executive Order No. 277 amending Section 68 of P.D. 705, the act of cutting, gathering, collecting, removing, or possessing forest products without authority constitutes a distinct offense independent now from the crime of theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, but the penalty to be imposed is that provided for under Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

Categories: 1997, Environmental Law, forestry laws, G.R. No. 111107 Leonardo Paat vs. CA January 10, search and seizures