THE BUTUAN LUMBER MANUFACTURING CO. INC., ET AL, PETITIONERS VS. HON. MONTANO ORTIZ, ET AL, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari against Hon. Montano

Ortiz, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan,

to annul the proceedings and orders of said judge in Special Civil Case No. 62 of the Court of First Instance of

Agusan, entitled “Rafael C. Aquino and Zacarias Aquino,

petitioners, vs.
The Butuan Lumber Manufacturing Co., Inc., Santiago Cabatic, Flavio
Boligor, Vicente Alguno, Felix Bertodazo and Merced, respondents,” on
the ground that his actuations therein are without or in excess of
court’s jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The petition
alleges that in said Special Civil Case No. 62, because of a boundary
conflict between petitioners therein and the respondents, said
petitioners applied to the judge below for a writ of preliminary
injunction against petitioners in this case; that the court below
ordered respondents to answer the petition for preliminary injunction;
and the court refused to grant two motions to dismiss the proceedings
filed by herein petitioners based on the ground that the petitioners in
said case had not exhausted the administrative remedies available,
because the respondents in that case (petitioners herein) had appealed
a decision of the Bureau of Forestry on the conflict, so that the
petition for preliminary injunction was without a cause of action.

Upon the filing of the present petition We ordered the

respondents to answer and We issued a preliminary restraining order, prohibiting respondents from logging in

the disputed area subject of the proceedings.

The facts disclosed by the record may be briefly staled as follows:
Rafael Aquino has a forest concession situated along the Davao-Agusan
Road in the middle of the province of Agusan. This concession borders
along the east with a forest concession in the name of Jose Leido but
now operated by the petitioner Butuan Lumbert Manufacturing Co., Inc.
The boundary of the Leido concession on the west is the Maygatasan-San
Salvador Trail. Sometime before June 1958 a forest guard by the name of
Cipriano M. Medina made a survey of the said trail. According to his
survey the trail passes in the middle of the concession of Rafael
Aquino. So trouble arose because petitioner Butuan Manufacturing Co.
wanted to log in the area east of the Medina trail and prohibit the
respondents from logging over the area immediately east thereof. On
June 25, 1958 Director Amos of the Bureau of Forestry ordered the
suspension of operations until verification by Forester Juan. (Annex C,
Motion To Dismiss) Juan made a survey, finding that the trail is not
that indicated by Medina, so the Bureau of Forestry amended the
boundary of the Aquino concession accordingly. (Annex A, Petition For
Injunction, CFI of Agusan, Sp. Civ. Case No. 62) .

Thereupon and on October 28, 1958 Aquino filed Special Civil Case No. 62 in the Court of First Instance of

Agusan, alleging the following:

(a) That petitioners have been logging in the disputed,

area since 1956, but that on May 28, 1958 respondents

and their agents entered the area, threatened and scared

petitioners’ cutters, laborers, haulers and drivers, and

stopped the operations.

(b) That the Bureau of Forestry thereupon stopped

logging operations of petitioners, until after investigation.

(c) And on October 28, 1958 said Bureau rectified

the common boundary line, thus proving that petitioners

were within the area covered by their license.

(d) That upon resumption by petitioners of their operations respondents entered the disputed area and stopped

the operations of petitioners, so petitioners were compelled to log in another area.

(e) Petitioners have already cut P500,000.00 worth

of logs and unless they are allowed to haul they would pay demurrage or dead freight.

Petitioners prayed that respondents and their agents

be prohibited from entering the disputed area and from

molesting petitioners in their logging operations, and

that respondents pay P1,110,000.00 damages, fees, and

expenses of the suit.

The record shows that upon the filing of the petition in the court
below, the court ordered the respondents to answer the petition.
Instead of filing their answer the respondents presented a motion to
dismiss alleging that the petition states no cause of action and that
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition.
Respondents alleged that the petition states no cause of action because
the respondents had appealed the decision of the Director of Forestry of
October 10, 1958 (recognizing Aquino’s claim as to the disputed
boundary), to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and
the latter had not yet decided the appeal, and that petitioners had not
exhausted the administrative remedies. It was also argued in the motion
that the petition is premature because the decision of the Bureau had
not become final, and lastly, that since the administrative remedies
have not been exhausted, the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the petition.

The motion to dismiss was set for hearing. After

hearing the judge held that the license of the Aquinos

expressly states that the statement of the boundaries of the Aquino concession was final. So the judge denied

the motion.

Motions to reconsider were denied. A second motion

to dismiss was also presented, and this was again denied,

the court deferring the resolution on the motion to dismiss

until after trial because the grounds therefore are not

indubitable.

Such are the facts and proceedings in the court below

that gave rise to the petition for certiorari filed in this court.

A consideration of the facts and the allegations of the

complaint filed in the court below readily shows that the

present petition cannot be granted. The complaint in the

court below alleges that after a verification of the disputed boundary between the concessions of the petitioners

herein and the respondent Aquino, the disputed area was

found to fall within the license issued in favor of Rafael

Aquino. In accordance with the findings in the investigation the forest license of Aquino was amended in its

description to include the disputed area.

When the complaint in the court below was filed, therefore Aquino was well within his rights in bringing the

action to prevent the respondent Butuan Lumber Manufacturing Co. from operating in the disputed area. It

was claimed in the motion to dismiss filed in the court

below that the dispute as to boundary had not been

finally settled because the Butuan Lumber Manufacturing

Co. had appealed the decision of the Director of Forestry.

The prosecution of said appeal by the Butuan Manufacturing Co. did not, per se, operate to render the decision

of the forestry bureau in favor of Aquino inoperative;

it was tine Butuan Lumber Manufacturing Company’s

right to the disputed area which had been denied by the

Director of Forestry, not that of Rafael Aquino. Indeed

it was the Butuan Lumber Manufacturing Co. which had

the obligation to appeal and secure a reversal of the decision of the bureau of forestry before it could allege

any right to log in the disputed area. Petitioner Aquino

in the case below for injunction was, under the circumstances, entitled to the issuance of the writ to preserve

his right to the disputed area; the appeal of the Butuan

Lumber Manufacturing Co. from the resolution of the

Director of Forestry did not have the effect of suspending

such right. The petition for injunction in the court below

was, therefore sufficient and it was the duty of the court

below to admit the same and require the respondent

therein to answer the petition, both of which the court

did.

As petitioner Aquino (in the court below) had a valid

petition, it necessarily follows that the contention of the

petitioners herein that the court below had no jurisdiction

to entertain Aquino’s petition, is without merit or legal

foundation.

The next question to decide is: Did the court below commit any abuse
of discretion in its proceedings in relation to the complaint for
preliminary injunction. The record discloses that upon finding the
complaint sufficient the judge below required the respondent to answer
and set the hearing of the petition for preliminary injunction. After
the hearing on the motion to dismiss the court held that as the grounds
of the motion to dismiss were not indubitable, it could not be granted
until after trial on the merits. In this the court below was absolutely
correct. As the complaint was sufficient in form and substance the
motion to dismiss could not be granted until after trial on the merits,
in which it should be shown that the allegations of the complaint are
unfounded or a special defense to the action existed. The court below
did not grant any preliminary injunction in favor of Aquino,
notwithstanding the fact that Aquino asked for the writ in his original
petition. Evidently the judge followed the provisions of the Rules that
require that no preliminary injunction shall issue without a hearing.
(Rule 60, Section 5)

Upon the whole, therefore, We find that the allegation

of the present petition that the court below in Special

Civil Case No. 62 acted without jurisdiction or with grave

abuse of discretion, has net been shown as alleged. The

petition in this Court, therefore, is declared without merit, and is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioners.

Consequent with the dismissal ordered the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court in this case is

hereby dissolved. (Rochelle vs. State, 75 So. 2d 268;

Canavan, et al. vs. Canavan, 139 Pac. Rep. 154.)

The dismissal, however, is without prejudice to the

continuation of the proceeding for contempt filed with

this Court on August 16, 1961. And considering that

the respondent in the motion for contempt has submitted

his answer thereto, said petition for contempt and the

answer thereto are hereby referred to the judge of the

Court of First Instance of Agusan for investigation and

report. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion,

Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.