Case Digest: Felipe Ysmael, etc vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, etc

G.R. No. 79538

Felipe Ysmael, etc vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, etc

October 18, 1990

Petitioner sought the reconsideration of a memorandum order issued by the Bureau of Forest Development which cancelled its timber license agreement in 1983, as well as the revocation of TLA No. 356 subsequently issued by the Bureau to private respondents in 1984 by sending letters to the Office of the President and the MNR [now the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Petitioner’s prayers were to no avail. Hence the petition in the Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion to public respondents.

RULING:

The Court stressed the authority of administrative bodies to handle matters within there scope without need of interference by the courts of law. These administrative bodies are deemed to be in better positions to determine issues within their specialty and resolve the same. The Court cited the doctrine of res judicata which avers that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment. The rule of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting within their exclusive jurisdiction

The Court also held that the assailed orders by public respondent was in line with the latter’s duty to develop and conserve the country’s natural resources in view of the constitutional mandate of the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. It is their duty to regulate the issuance of licenses (TLA) as they see fit, which the court cannot interfere with. The Court further held that sans grave abuse of discretion which may be imputed to public respondents, the court ruled that petitioner cannot seek affirmative relief.

Read More

Case Digest: Technology Developer, Inc. vs. CA

G.R. No. 94759

Technology Developer, Inc. vs. CA

January 21, 1991

Petitioner Technology Developer, Inc. sought to annul the Mayor’s order in closing the petitioner’s Plant, assailing the latter’s power in denying the former a mayor’s permit on the basis of environment violation.

RULING:

The lower courts were right in upholding the mayor’s order, reasoning that  although the NPCC of the Ministry of human Settlements (now Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) has the task to determine the existence of pollution and violations of environmental laws, the mayor by virtue of his police power has as much responsibility to protect its constituents from the same and regulate the operation of establishments which pose relative threat to the community.

The Court, in considering the evidence presented, upheld the respondent, stressing the importance of the general welfare of the community over and above the potential economic return of investment but is detrimental to many.

Read More

Case Digest: Pollution Adjudication board vs. Court of Appeal and Solar Textile Finishing Corp.

G.R. 93891

Pollution Adjudication board vs. Court of Appeal and Solar Textile Finishing Corp.

March 11, 1991

Respondent Solar assailed the Ex parte Cease and Desist Order by petitioner Pollution Adjudication Board on the ground that the former was denied due process and that the degree of threat required for the said Order is remiss. Petitioner reasoned that under PD No.984 Section 7(a), the Board has the legal authority to issue ex parte orders to suspend the operations of an establishment when there is prima facie evidence that such establishment is discharging effluents or wastewater, the pollution level of which exceeds the maximum permissible standards set by the NPCC.

RULING:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioner.

The Court held that the Board may issue the ex parte cease and desist order upon prima facie evidence that the respondent corporation has waste discharge beyond the allowable standards set by the NPCC (Sec5, Effluent Regulations of 1982 and Sec7(a),PD 984).  If it has not yet been subject to the allowable standard, the Board may still issue ex parte cease and desist order upon prima facie evidence that the effluent pose an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life. The court held that the Board, as the government entity tasked to determine whether the effluents of a particular industrial establishment comply with or violate applicable anti-pollution statutory and regulatory provisions, has the authority to issue the order as it may see fit. This is, after all, allowed by law to address relevant pollution issues as an immediate recourse.

Read More

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.

Read More

Case Digest: Mustang Lumber vs. CA

G.R. No. 104988

Mustang Lumber vs. CA

June 18, 1996

Petitioner lumber corporation assailed the nature of the seizure of its lumber products by respondents.

 

RULING:

The court held that the term ‘lumber’ as used in the information against petitioners, although not mentioned in express terms as among the prohibited articles under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705(Revised Forestry Code) must be understood in its ordinary and common usage. Lumber is to be understood as a processed log or timber. The court said that since the law makes no distinction between raw or processed timber, neither should we. Ubi lex non distinguere debemus. The court held that the petitioners were then correctly charged with the offense of violating Sec68 of PD No 705 as alleged by the facts in the information.

The court also held that the seizure of items and the truck carrying the same was done lawfully as it falls under lawful warrantless searches. Search of moving vehicles is one of the exceptions to the general rule that searches must be done with a warrant. Furthermore, such search and seizure was a valid exercise of the power vested upon the forest officer or employee by Section 80 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by P.D. No. 1775.

Finally, the court stressed petitioner’s violation of Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705. The court held that Secretary Factoran or his authorized representative indeed had the authority to seize the Lumber since petitioner’s license, at the time of seizure, was still suspended. Thus, petitioner was in illegal possession of the seized articles.

The Court ruled against petitioner in all three consolidated cases.

Read More

Case Digest: Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR

G.R. No 101083

Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR

July 30, 1993

Petitioner minors, represented by their parents, contended that the granting of the TLAs (Timber License Agreement) by respondent DENR was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. RTC dismissed the class suit on the ff grounds: 1)lack of cause of action; 2)the issue involved a  political question and 3)the relief sought would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause.

RULING:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioners.

The Court held that petitioners had the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of the suit. The Court recognized the beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental protection, citing provisions in the Constitution of the rights of the people specifically that of Sec 16, Art 2, which is the specific legal right invoked by the petitioners. The Court also stressed the correlative duty of the DENR as the branch of government tasked with the conservation, development and utilization of the country's natural resources (E.O. No. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987). Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty to protect and advance the said right.

As to the issue on political question, the Court held that the case should be afforded judicial review, citing second paragraph of sec1, Article VIII of the Constitution which states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The Court may take cognizance of cases involving issues on ‘grave abuse of discretion’.

The Court also assailed the ruling of the lower court, invoking the non-impariment clause, reasoning , for one, that the respondents did not even raise the said issue. Granting for argment’s sake that respondents did, the TLA is not a contract but is only a license or a privilege which may be subject to withdrawal by proper authority if deemed necessary for the general welfare and betterment of the country.

The Court granted the petition, allowing petitioners to amend complaint against TLA holders.

Read More

Case Digest: Mead vs. Argel

G.R. No. L-41958

Donald Mead  vs. Hon. Manuel Argel, CFI

July 20, 1982

Petitioner Donald Mead assailed the legal personality of the Provincial Fiscal to file an information against him for his alleged violation of RA No. 3931 or An Act Creating a National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission. Petitioner averred that the National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission created under the said law has the authority to hear cases involving violations under the same.

The Court ruled that the filing by the Provincial Fiscal of the case was premature sans the findings of the Commission on the matter.

Petitioner was being sued for the offense of allegedly causing pollution of a waterway (highway canal)(Sec 9). The Court held that the exclusive authority to determine whether or not ‘pollution’ did exist is vested in the Commission, who is in better position to determine the same for such requires specialized knowledge of technical and scientific matters which are not ordinarily within the competence of Fiscals or of those sitting in a court of justice (Sec 8).

RULING:

Unless the case involves that of nuisance under the Civil Code or until there is a ruling by the Commission on the alleged act of pollution, no court action shall be initiated (Sec8).

Without a prior determination or finding by the Commission that the provisions of the subject law had been violated, the provincial Fiscal lacked the authority to file the case against petitioner.

Read More