VALERIANO C. BUENO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HON. JUDGE MONTANO ORTIZ, MACARIO C. CONDE AND PEDRO B. PATANAO, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY AND THE DISTRICT F…

These three (3) cases are
interrelated.

In G.R. No. L-22978, Valeriano C. Bueno, seeks a
writ of certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary pre­ventive and mandatory
injunction, against Judge Montano Ortiz of the Court of First instance of Agusan, its Clerk of Court, Mariano C. Conde,
and Pedro B. Patanao,
to annul an order of attachment
and garnishment issued, on February 7, 1964, in Special Civil Case No. 48 of
said Court, en­titled “Pedro B. Patanao vs. Valeriano C. Bueno and Juanito Merin,” as directed
in an order of Judge Ortiz, dated February 5, 1964.  After due hearing on the petition for a preliminary preventive and mandatory
injunction and upon the filing of the
requisite bond, on July 28, 1964, this Court issued a writ restraining the
respondents, as well as their
agents and representatives, from enforcing the afore­mentioned order of
attachment and garnishment, as well as directing
said respondents to set aside whatever attachment or garnishment they may have
levied upon the properties of Bueno.

In G.R. No. L-24345, the Director of Forestry and the District
Forester of Agusan apply for a writ of cer­tiorari
and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, against said Judge Ortiz, as well
as against Jesus S. Ruiz, as
Acting Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan,
and Patanao,
to annul another order, issued ex–parte
in said Special Civil Case No. 48, on November 3, 1964, pro­hibiting and
restraining the officials and employees of the Bureau of Forestry, and the
Philippine Constabulary – hereinafter referred to as the PC – “from
entering the areas subject of litigation x x x without
previous author­ity” from said court, and to restrain and prohibit them
from enforcing said order.  Upon the filing of said peti­tion, we
issued the writ of preliminary injunction therein prayed for.

Upon the other hand, G.R. No. L-24770 is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition, with
preliminary injunction, of the Director of Forestry and Bueno
Industrial and Development Corporation – hereinafter referred to as Bueno’s
Corporation – to annul a “partial decision” in Spe­cial Civil Case No. 190 of the same Court of First
Instance, entitled “Pedro B. Patanao vs. The
Director of Forestry, the District Forester of Agusan,
the Forest Officer of Bayugan, Agusan,
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Philippine Constabulary,” in which judge
Ruiz incorporated a “permanent preliminary injunction” against the PC,
restraining and prohibiting the same from enforcing an order of the Director of Forestry “stopping all logging op­erations
by Aquino
and Patanao x x x for operating without license,” and directing the PC
to “release the impounded trucks and the confiscated logs x x x owned and belonging to x x x Patanao x x x.” Upon the filing of said petition, we,
likewise, issued the writ of
preliminary injunction herein prayed
for.

Pursuant to a decision of
the Court of Appeals, dated January 24, 1962, in CA-GR No. 27271-R, which is final and executory,
Patanao used to be the holder of two (2) ordinary
timber licenses^[1] covering portions of the public forest lo­cated
in Maygatasan, Verdu and
Esperanza, Municipality of Bayugan, Province of Agusan.  One of said
licenses expired on June 30, 1955 and the other on June 30, 1957.  On
June 28, 1956, Patanao applied for the renewal of the first license;
but, being in default in the payment of forest and reforestation charges,
aggregating P54,147.42, he was given up to December 29, 1956, within
which to pay this sum and advised that otherwise his application
for renewal would be rejected without further notice.

On December 18, 1956, the
District Forester of Agusan Vicente Marababol, notified
Patanao that,
upon advice from the then Director of
Forestry, Felipe R. Amos, further
op­eration of his (Patanao’s) two (2) concessions
would be “considered illegal and any production therefrom
subject to surcharges,” pursuant to the National Internal Revenue Code,
and not exportable without Amos’
prior approval, his (Patanao’s) timber licenses not
having been renewed.  In reply, Patanao announced, however, that, in view of certain pay­ments allegedly made on account of his debt, he would continue his
logging operations.  On January 22 and May 17, 1957, Marababol advised Patanao that, effective
immediately, the government would impose a surcharge of 300% and that the forest area
covered by the expired license would be disposed of.

On February 6, 1958, Amos notified Patanao that, be­fore any action could be taken on his
application for re­newal, he
should present a certificate, from the City Treasurer of Butuan,
to the effect that he (Patanao) had no pending
accounts for forest and reforestation charges, and that, unless notice to this
effect was received not later than March 5, 1958 – which was subsequently extended for thirty days – said application for renewal
would be rejected, without
further notice.  On March 6,
1958, Amos advised Patanao that owing to his failure to apply for a renewal of his second license, which expired on June 30, 1957, the
area covered by it would be
disposed of in accordance with law, if no notice was received
from him on or before April 6, 1958.

On April 10, 1958, Patanao, accordingly,
applied for the consolidation of his two (2) ordinary timber
licenses, for a five-year term.  Amos
was seemingly in favor of a renewal
for a term of one-year only, to expire on
June 30, 1959; but, before he could
forward the pertinent papers to
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
for the latter’s approval, Bueno asked Amos to withhold action upon the ground that Patanao was not qualified to engage in logging
operations; that his application for renewal had not complied with some requirements
therefor, and that
Patanao
had committed certain specified irregularities.

As a consequence, Amos informed Marababol that he (Amos) had withheld action on Patanao’s
application for renewal and instructed Marababol to
notify Patanao that further operations would be
illegal.  Marababol
transmitted this information to Patanao and directed
him to stop imme­diately his operations, the same being illegal.  Patanao sought a
reconsideration, and, subsequently, protested against the refusal of Marababol to clear his logs for export and the imposition of a 300% surcharge.  The Office of the District Forester of Agusan replied stating that it was merely carrying out
instructions and policies of the Bureau of Forestry.  “Despite official advices to the contrary”,
Patanao “persisted in his logging operations in defiance of the order of Director Amos”. ^[2] Moreover, on June 17, 1958, Patanao commenced
Special Civil Case No. 50 of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, for
injunction and damages, with preliminary injunction, against Amos and Marababol,
including his assistant forester, Pedro B. Sal­vador.

Patanao alleged, in his petition, that he is the holder of a timber license,
which had been renewed from year to year, and that Salvador had seized 70
pieces of logs cut by Patanao in the area covered by
said license, allegedly upon orders of Amos and Marababol, upon the ground that his (Patanao’s)
application for renewal of license had not been approved and that he had not
paid the surcharges imposed upon him.  Patanao, prayed, therefore, that respondents therein be sentenced to pay damages,
and restrained from interfering with his logging operations, and from imposing
surcharges upon him, as well as directed to release the aforementioned logs and
to allow him to dispose of the logs cut in the forest area covered by his
alleged ordinary timber license.

After appropriate proceedings, the Court of First Instance of Agusan rendered judgment for Patanao,
prohibiting respondents therein from interfering with his logging op­erations, restraining
them from imposing surcharges, ordering them to allow the transportation, sale
and shipment of all logs cut under his timber license(?) and sentencing them to
pay P25,000 by way of damages, in addition to the costs.  On appeal taken by
said respondents, this judgment was, on January 24, 1962, reversed by
the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. 27271-R, for the reason that Patanao “has no duly issued and valid timber license
to operate in the areas in question from July 1, 1958 to June 30, 1959;” that he was delinquent in the
payment of taxes and surcharges aggregating P163,066.46; that the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the lower court was “manifestly
erroneous”; and that there was no justification, therefore, for the award
of damages.  The decision of the Court of
Appeals became final and executory on March 28, 1962.

A little over a month prior to the institution of said Case No. 50, or on May 5, 1958, Patanao had instituted Special Civil Case No. 48 of the same Court
of First Instance, against Bueno and one Juanito Merin, to recover damages
resulting
from their alleged illegal entry into the area co­vered by the timber license that
he (Patanao) claimed to have and the cutting of logs
therein by said respondents, as well as to restrain them from interfering with
his logging operations within said area. 
In the course of said proceedings, the Clerk of Court of Agusan, Mariano C. Conde, had
issued, on February 7, 1964, in compliance with an order of Judge Ortiz dated
February 5, 1964, a “writ of attach­ment and garnishment,” addressed
to the Sheriff of Manila, directing him to “attach the estate, real and
personal, of Bueno, x x x to the
value” of Patanao’s “demands” in said
case “and costs of suit.” Pursuant to said writ, the She­riff of
Manila attached and garnished properties of Bueno.  Thereupon, ^[3]
the latter filed Case CA-GR L-33604-R of the Court of Appeals, for a writ of
certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, against Judge Ortiz,
his Clerk of Court (Conde) and Patanao.  After giving due course to the petition and
issuing the writ of preliminary injunction therein prayed for, the Court of Appeals, dismissed the pe­tition, ^[4]
upon the ground that the amount involved therein is beyond its jurisdiction,
and within that of the Supreme Court. 
The action thus taken by the Court of Appeals was sustained by us in
L-22948.

Consequently, on May 28,
1964, Bueno filed, against the same respondents in
CA-GR No. 33604-R, the petition in L-22978, for a writ of certiorari and
prohibition, with preliminary injunction, to annul the aforementioned writ of
attachment and garnishment in Case No. 48 and to restrain the enforcement
thereof.  Upon the filing of a P20,000 bond,
we issued a writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the respondents to set
aside such attachment or garnishment as may have been levied upon the
properties of Bueno.

In a seeming effort to
settle the conflict between Patanao and Bueno, the Director of Forestry sought to con­duct a survey
of the common boundary of the areas covered by their respective claims; but, on
motion of Patanao, Judge Ruiz issued, on November 3,
1964, an order prohibiting the officials and employees of the Bureau of
Forestry, including the Philippine Constabulary, “from entering the areas
subject of litigation x x x
without previous authority from” the Court of First Instance of Agusan.  This order
was, on motion for reconsideration filed by Buena and Merin,
sustained by Judge Ortiz.

Accordingly, on March
25, 1965, the Director of Forestry and the District Forester of Agusan instituted Case G.R. No. L-24345, for certiorari end
prohibition, with preliminary injunction, against Judges Ortiz and Ruiz, as
well as Patanao, to annul said order of Novem­ber 3,
1964, and restrain its enforcement, alleging that said order is void for want
of jurisdiction over the of­ficials and employees of the Bureau of Forestry and
the Philippine Constabulary, who are not parties in Case No. 48.  Upon the filing of the petition in said Case,
or on March 29, 1965, we
issued the writ of preliminary injunct­ion therein prayed for.

In the meantime, the issue raised by Patanao’s
appli­cation for renewal and the opposition thereto filed by Bueno had, on June
17, 1960, been decided by the Bureau of Forestry in favor of Patanao. On motion for reconsideration filed by Bueno, on June 27, 1960, the Bureau of Forestry, issued on October
11, 1960, an order suspending the effects of said decision, as well as the
resolution of said motion, until certain criminal and civil cases pend­ing
against Patanao “are finally resolved by the
correspond­ing authorities x x x.”

On June 6, 1961,
the Director of Forestry rendered another decision rejecting Patanao’s application for re­newal and declaring the areas
covered by the same vacant, upon the ground that said cases were prima facie
evidence of violations of the terms and conditions of his timber license.  Later on, one of the criminal cases against Patanao was dismissed and he was acquitted in another
criminal case.  Moreover, the Bureau of
Forestry found that two (2) civil cases against Patanao
did not refer to the logging operations under his timber license.  Hence, on October 3, 1963, the then Acting
Director of Forestry, Estanislao Bernal, rendered a
decision giving due course to Patanao’s application
for renewal, “upon satisfactory showing that all his accounts consisting
of forest charges and surcharges and reforestation funds, if any, shall be
first settled before the issuance of the corresponding licenses and that he
possesses sufficient financial capa­bilities and adequate logging
equipment.” No new timber License was, however, issued to Patanao.

On March 3, 1964, the acting Director of Forestry, Apolonio Rivera, who had succeeded Director Bernal, issued
an order holding in abeyance the execution of the latter’s decision,
“pending verification of the truth of the alle­gation that the area
covered thereby had already been de­forested and had long been under
cultivation.” On May 31, 1965, the Director of Forestry ordered the
District Forester of Agusan to stop all logging
operations of Patanao be­cause he was “operating
without licenses”,
and “to secure PC assistance if necessary and prosecute criminally
to make Patanao respect forestry authority.”
Upon being advised of this development, on or about June 3, 1965, Pa­tanao instituted Special Civil Case No. 190 of the Court
of First Instance of Agusan, against the Director of
Forestry, the District Forester of Agusan, the Forest
Offi­cer of Bayugan, Agusan,
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the PC, to prevent – first by a writ of preliminary
injunction, and later by permanent injunct­ion – the enforcement of the
aforementioned instructions of the Director of Forestry, and to compel him to issue and
release the renewed timber license applied for.

Alleging that the area claimed by Patanao
overlaps over and encroaches upon the forested area covered by a timber license
in favor of Bueno’s Corporation, the latter filed on June 17, 1965, a motion to
intervene in Said Case No. 190.  It,
likewise, moved to dismiss Patanao’s complaint
therein.  Neither motion was, however,
acted upon by the lower court.

Upon the other hand, on June 25, 1965, the Director of Forestry and the
other respondents in Case No. 190
filed their opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
sought by Patanao. Under date of July 2, 1965, said respondents in Case No. 190 filed
their answer with affirmative defenses, reiterating, in effect, the allega­tions
made in their aforementioned opposition to a preli­minary injunction.

It appears that the day before, the Court of First Instance of Agusan, presided over by Judge Ruiz, had – on motion of Patanao, based upon the allegation that the PC had not as
yet filed its answer, although it had been served with summons on June 7, 1965 –
declared the PC in default and authorized Patanao to
present his evidence against the PC on July 2, 1965, and the day following the
presentation of said evidence, or on July 3, 1965, Judge Ruiz rendered a
decision against the PC and issued against the same and “any person or persons acting in
their x x behalf” a writ of “permanent
preliminary injunction”, restraining and prohibiting them from enforcing
the afore­mentioned order of the Director of Forestry, dated May 31, 1965, and
from stopping, delaying, molesting or disturbing Patanao’s
logging operations in the disputed area, as well as directing the PC, its
officers and soldiers to re­lease certain trucks and logs of Patanao
that had been impounded and confiscated upon receipt of the order afore­mentioned.

On July 6, 1965,
the Provincial Commander of the PC in Agusan filed an
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of said decision. On July 21, 1965, the Director of Forestry and Bueno’s Corporation commenced Case G.R. No. L-24770, for a
writ of certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, against Patanao and Judge Ruiz, alleging that said partial
decision of July 3, 1965, constituted a gross violation of the Rules of Court
and of established prece­dents; that said motion for reconsideration of the PC
had not as yet been acted upon; that the delay in its resolution “irretrievably and irreparably works damage
and prejudice to the Government in terms of forest and reforestation charges
unpaid and public forest denuded as a result of the unabated night and day
logging done by Patanao x x
x who holds no timber license” therefor and has defied the orders of the Director of
Forestry directing him to stop his ille­gal logging operations; and that, in
acting as he did, Judge Ruiz had acted without jurisdiction and/or with grave
abuse of discretion.

On July 23, 1965,
we issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.  Subsequently, respondents herein filed their
answer, admitting some allegations of the peti­tion, denying other allegations
thereof and setting up special and/or affirmative defenses, to which reference
will presently be made.

The main issue in L-22978 is whether
or not the lower court had committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing a
writ of attachment and garnishment against the properties of Bueno, to answer for the damages he had allegedly caused to
Patanao by entering into the forest area covered by
his alleged timber license and cutting logs therein.  This is­sue must be resolved in the affirmative, for Patanao’s
alleged cause
of action in Case No. 48 is anchored upon the claim that he had a timber license on said area, which he does
not have, and it has been so declared by the Court of Appeals in its
decision in CA-GR No. 27271-R, promulgated on January 24, 1962, which
became final and executory on March 28, 1962.  Although Bueno’s
Corporation was not a party in
that case, Patanao was, and, hence, said decision is
conclusive against him.

It is true that Patanao had had two (2) licenses, but the same had
expired, one on
June 30, 1955 and
the other on June 30, 1957.  Although he had applied for the renewal of
said licenses, he never went beyond getting a ruling of The Director of Forestry^[5]
giving due course to his (Patanao’s application
for renewal, the consideration
of which had bee held in abeyance owing to Patanao‘s
delinquency in the payment of forests charges and surcharges, as well as
reforestation charges.  In any event,
giving due course to his application for renewal is not tantamount to granting the same, for which the approval of the
department head is necessary.  Again, the due course given to his
application for renewal was subject to a condition precedent – submission of
proof of payment of his debt to
the government – which had not been complied with.

Inasmuch as the facts before the court of first instance of Agusan showed that Patanao has no
timber license, his lack of
cause of action againts Bueno was apparent.  Consequently, it committed a grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, in issuing the
writ of attachment and garnishment complained of in L-22978.

It is even more obvious that said court exceeded its jurisdiction
in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction involved in L-24345, because the Bureau of Forestry and the PC, against
which the writ was addressed, were not parties in said Case No. 48. 
Hence, the lower court
had no jurisdiction over them.

As regards L-24770, it is
urged that Bueno’s Corpora­tion and the Director of
Forestry have no personality or cause of action against the respondents
therein, because the partial decision rendered in case No. 190 is directed
against the PC, not the Director of Forestry, and because Bueno’s
Corporation is
not a party in said
case, his motion to intervene therein
not having been granted or acted upon.  Respondent’s pretense is manifestly devoid of merit.  The Director of
Forestry was one of the defendants in Case No. 190
and, although partial decision rendered and the injunction issued by Judge Ruiz were directed against the PC, it
sought to restrain the
latter from enforcing an or­der of
said Director of Forestry.

Bueno was not a party in Case No. 190,
because his motion to intervene
therein was not resolved by
Judge Ruiz, several months after it had been filed.

In their answer,
respondents herein allege that
there “is no showing that
the area covered by the license
(?) of respondent Patanao is applied for” by Bueno.  Patanao has,
however, no license as yet.  In his own petition in Case No. 190, he prays that the Director of Forestry and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources “be ordered to act on and release
petitioner‘s (Patanao) ordinary tim­ber license”.  It is thus impliedly admitted that no license has,
as yet, been issued in his favor.

Moreover, Bueno’s Corporation alleged in its motion to intervene, and
reiterated in the petition herein, that Patanao is and has been logging in the former’s licensed forest area.  Bueno can
not possibly prove the truth of this allegation until after its motion to intervene has been granted or acted upon.  Moreover, the existence of an actual conflict
between Patanao and Bueno
is attested to by Patanao’s action for damages
against Bueno in Case No. 48.  At any rate, since the
“permanent preliminary
injunction” issued by Judge Ruiz runs counter to the li­cense that Bueno claims to have, it is obvious that it has a right to
seek in L-24770 a relief against the injury said injunction causes
upon the corporation.

It is next urged that the petition in L-24770 is pre­mature because the PC‘s motion for reconsideration in Case
No. 190 has not yet been acted upon.  It
should be noted, however, that the “permanent preliminary injunction”
com­plained of is part – in fact, the main part – of the partial judgment complained
of.  This judgment partakes, therefore, of the nature of a writ of preliminary injunction and is effective
immediately.  Being forthwith injurious to
public interest, represented
here by the Director of Forestry, and to
the interest that Bueno claims to have over the area in which Patanao is engaged
In logging, and, considering the
lower court’s delay in acting on said motion for
reconsider­ation, petitioners herein
were fully justified in filing the present action without waiting for the resolution of the aforesaid motion.

In
answer to the charge that
respondent Judge had committed a grave abuse of discretion in rendering a
default judgment against the PC, respondents allege that, not having filed its answer within the reglementary
period, the PC was in default, so that it was proper for Patanao to forthwith present his evidence and for
respondent Judge to render said
judgment.  It should be noted, however,
that, in entering the area in question and seeking to prevent Patanao for continuing his logging operations therein, the
PC was merely executing an order of the Director of Forestry and acting as his
agent.  Patanao’s cause of action against
the PC is, therefore, common
with its cause of action against the other respondents in Case No. 190, namely,
the Director of Forestry, the District Forester of Agusan,
the Forest Officer of Bayugan,
Agusan, and the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources.  Pursuant to Rule 18, Section 4, of the Rules of
Court, “when a complaint states a common cause of action against several
defendants some of whom answer and the other fail to
do so, the court shall try
the case against all upon the answer thus filed^[6] and render judgment upon the evidence presented.” In other words, the answer
filed by one or some of the defendants inures to the benefit of all the others, even those who have not
seasonably filed their answer.

Indeed, since the
petition in Case No. 190 sets forth a common
cause of action against all of the respondents therein, a
decision in favor of one of them would necessary favor the others.  In fact, the main issue, in said case, is
whether Patanao has a timber license to undertake
logging operations in the disputed
area.  It is not possible to decide such issue in the negative, insofar as the Director of Forestry, and to settle it
otherwise, as regards the PC, which is merely
acting as agent of the Director of Forestry and is, therefore, his alter ego, with respect to the disputed forest area.

Patanao says that the Director of Forestry, the Dis­trict
Forester, the Forest Officer of Bayugan, Agusan, and
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources were, also, in default in Case No. 190, because their answer then in had been, similarly filed beyond the reglementary period. 
This is, however, an allegation which has not been so far
substantiated.  In fact, Patanao’s motion of July 1, 1965, to declare
the PC in default, suggests that the movant did not
believe the other respondents to be in the same predi­cament.

In his answer to the petition herein, Patanao
has annexed a carbon copy of a motion he claims to have filed in Case No. 190^[7]
to strike off the answer of said respondents therein, and to declare them in
default.  As of Aug­ust 3, 1965, when Patanao’s
answer in the case at bar was filed, said alleged motion had not seemingly been
granted or acted upon by Judge Ruiz.  At
any rate, when he rendered a partial judgment and issued a “permanent
preliminary injunction” against the PC,
there was no order declaring the other respondents in Case No. 190 in
default.

The main question for determination in this case is whether
respondent Judge had acted without jurisdiction and/or committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of
jurisdiction, in proceeding to hear Case No. 190 ex–parte
on July 2, 1965, as regards the PC, and in rendering its partial judgment of July 3,
1965, permanently restraining and prohibiting the PC, its officers, soldiers
and other persons acting on its behalf, from enforcing the order of the
Director of Forestry of May 31, 1965, and directing the release of the trucks
of Patanao and the logs cut by him, which had been
respectively impounded and con­fiscated by the PC, upon receipt of said order.

We hold that the issue must be decided in the affirm­ative,
because:

1. The order declaring the PC in default, as well as the subsequent hearing on the merits and the partial judgment
against the PC contravenes the above-mentioned provision of the Rules of Court,
concerning cases involv­ing a common cause of action against several defendants;

2. It is patent from the petition in Case No.
190 and the partial judgment therein that the PC had acted as agent of the
Director of Forestry;

3. It is apparent from
said petition that Patanao has not as yet secured the
requisite timber license, although he claimed to be entitled to one and,
accordingly, sought to compel the respondents in Case No. 190 to issue said license;

4. The decision of the
Director of Forestry dated October 31, 1963, on which Patanao
relies, merely gives due course to his application for a license, and
even this action is conditioned “upon satisfactory showing that all of his
accounts consisting of forest charges and
surcharges and reforestation funds, if any, shall first be settled x
x x and
that he possesses sufficient financial capabilities and adequate logging
equipment,” aside from the fact that there is no allegation or proof that this
condition has been fulfilled;

5. On January 24, 1962,
the Court of Appeals rendered in CA-G.R. No. 27271-R thereof, a decision, which
is now fi­nal and executory, as well as binding and conclusive upon Patanao, declaring that his logging operations, after the
expiration of his timber licenses, are illegal;

6. In L-24345, we issued, on March 28, 1965, a writ of
preliminary injunction restraining respondents therein, including Patanao and Judge Ruiz, from enforcing an order of the
Court of First instance of Agusan dated November 3,
1964, restraining the officers of the Bureau of Forestry and the PC from
entering the forest area which was soon later involved in Case No. 190, and the
“permanent preli­minary injunction” therein issued by Judge Ruiz on July 3 1965, had the
effect of nullifying our injunction in said Case L-24345.

WHEREFORE, the writ of attachment and garnishment issued in
said Special Civil Case No. 48, of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, on February 7, 1964, the writ of preliminary
injunction issued in the same case, on No­vember 3, 1964, and the partial
decision, with a writ of “permanent preliminary injunction”, rendered
in the aforementioned Special Civil Case No. 190 of the same Court, on July 3, 1965, are hereby annulled, and our writs of preliminary injunction in L-22978, L-24345 and L-24770, accordingly,
made permanent, with costs against respondent, Pedro B. Patanao.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Nos. 1247-55 and 1750-57.

^[2]
Decision in CA-GR No. 27271-R.

^[3]
On February 20, 1964.

^[4]
On April 29, 1964.

^[5]
On October 3, 1963.

^[6]
By some.

^[7]
On or about July 11, 1965.