G.R. No. L-25026. August 31, 1971
HON. JUAN L. UTLEG, AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FORESTRY, HON. JOSE Y. FELICIANO, AS SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PETITI…
RUIZ CASTRO, J.:
Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
to annul and set aside the order dated September 10, 1965 and the writ of
preliminary injunction dated September 13, 1965, both issued by the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Branch I, in civil case 62144.
The facts are undisputed.
On June 20, 1962 the Director of Forestry issued to Tindalo Timber Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
respondent corporation) Ordinary Timber License 181-’63 (new) to cut and remove
14,340 cubic meters of timber from the public forest situated in the
municipalities of Compostela, Mabini
and Pantukan, province of Davao,
subject to the rules, terms and conditions specified therein, said license to
expire on June 30, 1963.
On June 28, 1963 the respondent corporation filed with the
District Forester of Davao an application for renewal
of the aforementioned timber license and paid the corresponding fees therefor which were duly accepted and receipted for. The District Forester, by a 1st Indorsement dated June 28, 1963, forwarded the said application
to the Director of Forestry for proper consideration and action, noting therein
as follows:
“Per the certificates issued by the Revenue Collector and the
Acting City Treasurer of Butuan City and as attested
by the Assistant District Forester of the same city, the Tindalo
Timber Corporation has manifested under its O.T. No. 181-’63 a total volume of
7,746.15 cubic meters of timber, which is less than
60% of the allowable cut of 14,000 cubic meters granted in its license. However, an examination of the records of
payment of the licensee shows that the last recorded invoice paid is May 28,
1963. It is the opinion of this Office,
therefore, that at the rate of production the licensee has in its operation, it
is possible that the total volume that can be manifested by the licensee up to
the end of June, 1963, can come up to the required 60%.
“Per the certificate issued by the Officer in Charge of Nabunturan Timber Management Station, selective logging
practices have not yet been implemented inside the area covered by this license
as the licensee’s operation has been confined to the construction of logging
roads leading to its area. However, the
necessary number of laborers for timber management work has already been
employed by the licensee and their services for selective logging work will be
availed of as soon as logging operations inside the area have started.”
Nevertheless, the District Forester
recommended that
“In view of the fact that all the major requisites for the
renewal of O.T. No. 181-’63 have been complied with, x x
x the application of the Tindalo
Timber Corporation for the renewal and extension of their license for the next
fiscal year be given due course.”
On August 8, 1963 the Bureau of Forestry, through the then acting
Director of Forestry, issued an extension or renewal of the said license in
favor of the respondent corporation under Ordinary Timber License 642-’64 to
expire on June 30, 1964.
On September 6, 1963 the
acting Director of Forestry, by letter dated August 3, 1963, forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources the proposed license, O. T. 642-’64 (renewal), stating therein that “The area
covered by this license is identical to that covered by its expired O. T. No. 181-’63.”
On September 24, 1963 the
acting Director of Forestry received from the officer-in-charge of the forest
station at Magugpo, Tagum, Davao, a report that the respondent corporation had
committed violations of the terms and conditions of its expired license by
cutting timber outside its licensed area, i.e., in the Mainit
Hot Springs National Park and in a portion of the area of one Jose C.
Garcia. Upon receipt of the said report,
the acting Director of Forestry wrote the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, requesting for the return of the proposed license No. 642-’64. Consequently, the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources returned the proposed license unapproved.
On November 5, 1963 the
acting Director of Forestry issued an order rejecting the application for
renewal of license filed by the respondent corporation on the ground that
during the lifetime of its Ordinary Timber License 181-’63 (new), the
corporation had cut timber outside its licensed area, in violation of the
terms and conditions of the said license.
On November 19, 1963 the
respondent corporation by letter moved the Director of Forestry to reconsider
his abovementioned order, but admitting in the said letter that the logs gathered
by its workers were logs cut by kaingineros.
On December 13, 1963 the
Director of Forestry rendered a decision denying the respondent corporation’s
motion for reconsideration on the ground that, even if no cutting was made by
it outside its licensed area and that what its men gathered were trees cut by kaingineros, still, it violated the terms and conditions
of its license by invoicing under its Ordinary Timber License 181-’63 (new) the
illegally gathered logs, contrary to the provisions of section 35(c) of
Forestry Administrative Order 11 incorporated at the back of its license, which
provides:
“(c) A
licensee shall neither purchase forest products illegally gathered, nor
invoice those cut without license, or allow any person to cut, collect or remove
forest products within his license area under any consideration, financial or
otherwise. In the case of forest products cut by a non-Christian, the necessary
forest charges shall be collected from the dealer who contracts for or
received such products,”
in relation to
section 3 (s) thereof, which reads:
“(s) If a licensee cuts, collects or removes forest
products other than those specified in his license, such forest products shall
be considered as taken without license.”
On January 2, 1964 the Director of Forestry, in a telegram to the
District Forester, ordered the latter to determine the amount of timber cut
within the 274-meter long road right-of-way inside the respondent corporation’s
area and to authorize the removal therefrom upon
payment of forest charges and proper contribution to the reforestation fund.
On April 29, 1964, before the expiration of the aforementioned
extension or renewal of its license, the respondent corporation again applied
for its renewal for the year 1964-1965 and paid the corresponding fees therefor, which were accepted and receipted for by the
Bureau of Forestry. The payment of the
application fee was however made only on July 8, 1964, although the license
fee was paid on June 29, 1964.
From the adverse decision of the Director of Forestry rendered on
December 13, 1963, the respondent corporation appealed to the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. On
January 15, 1965 the Secretary rendered a decision dismissing the appeal of
the respondent corporation on the ground that –
“Since it appears from the above report that as of June 17,
1963, the corporation had as yet no logging operations as all road improvements
were still inside the park, the 7,746.15 cubic meters it manifested under its
O.T. No. 181-’63 could not have been cut by it inside its license area and,
therefore, there must be some truth to its allegation that the logs were
either cut by kaingineros or left stranded by floods
along the Manat River. However, under the regulations and as one of
the conditions of its license, the corporation is prohibited from invoicing
any forest product secured without license (Sec. 35(c), FAO No. 11 and Rule No.
12 of the rules appended to the license).”
The respondent
corporation elevated the order and decision of the Director of Forestry and the
said decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the
Office of the President. On April 30,
1965 the Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, rendered a
decision dismissing the appeal of the respondent corporation on the ground that
the act of the latter in invoicing as its own under its O.T. License No.
181-’63 the 7,746.15 cubic meters of logs allegedly cut by kaingineros or
left stranded by floods along the Manat River was
illegal, for the same, having been cut within the national park and not in the respondent
corporation’s licensed area, should have been turned over to the Parks and
Wildlife Office having jurisdiction thereon.
The Executive Secretary furthermore observed that the Director of
Forestry and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources had observed
due process in the administrative proceedings.
On May 29, 1965 the respondent corporation filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Executive Secretary’s decision. On July 13, 1965 the Executive Secretary
advised the Director of Forestry and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources to withhold implementation of their respective orders and decisions
rejecting the application for renewal until after the said motion for
reconsideration shall have been decided.
On August 12, 1965 the respondent corporation, without waiting
for the resolution of its motion for reconsideration then pending with the
Executive Secretary, filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila
(hereinafter referred to as the respondent court) civil case 62144 for
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary injunction against the
acting Director of the Bureau of Forestry, the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, and the Executive Secretary (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the petitioners); alleging that the aforementioned acts of the
petitioners were “highly arbitrary, abusive, and confiscatory, and had
deprived herein petitioner [the respondent corporation herein] of its rights,
interest and properties without due process of law,” praying for the reliefs mentioned therein, which are that, pending hearing
on the merits, due to the urgent need under the circumstances and facts of the
case, time being of the essence, (a) an order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction be issued by the said court restraining, enjoining, and prohibiting
immediately the petitioners herein or their agents, representatives or any
other persons acting in their behalf, from enforcing and implementing the
order of the Director of Forestry dated November 5, 1963, the decision of the
said Director of Forestry dated December 13, 1963; the decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources dated January 15, 1965, and the
decision of the Executive Secretary dated April 30, 1965, and from granting,
disposing of and/ or awarding the said timber concession area covered by
Ordinary Timber License 181, series of 1963, of the respondent corporation to
other parties, upon the filing of a bond in an amount which the said court may
fix; and that (b) herein petitioners be enjoined or prohibited from further
proceeding in the matter of the acts complained of.
On August 16, 1965 the respondent court issued an order requiring
the petitioners (respondents therein) to answer the petition within ten days
from receipt thereof, and on the same date, by a separate order, it temporarily
restrained the petitioners from implementing the order and decisions
complained of, and set the application for preliminary injunction for hearing
on September 4, 1965.
On August 27, 1965 the petitioners filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss, on the grounds that the petition fails to state a cause of
action; that the respondent corporation failed to exhaust administrative
remedies; that its Ordinary Timber License, 181-’63 (new) having incontestably
expired on June 30, 1963, and its renewal being a matter of discretion vested
upon the, Director of Forestry, whatever action that the latter may take,
whether to grant or deny the renewal, is an act within his authority and
jurisdiction, and hence, not subject to judicial review, and being a
discretionary act, it can be done in either way and still be right; that the
lower court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of the respondent
public officials (petitioners herein) in whom the law vested the authority to
grant or renew licenses or permits for logging operations in any public forest;
and that the respondent corporation will not suffer grave or irreparable damage
or injury. They prayed that the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction be denied and the petition dismissed.
On September 4, 1965 the respondent corporation filed an
opposition to the petitioners’ opposition to preliminary injunction and motion
to dismiss petition, reiterating its prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.
On September 6, 1965 the Executive Secretary, by authority of the
President, released and returned to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, by 4th Indorsement dated August 17, 1965
(received by the Record Section, Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources on September 6, 1965, but thru inadvertence was not brought to the
Secretary’s attention until after the filing of the original petition),
resolution of the respondent corporation’s motion for reconsideration filed
with the Office of the President, finding that the rejection of the respondent
corporation’s application for renewal of its timber license was based on facts
appearing on record and that due process had been accorded, and therefore
denying the said motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
On September 8, 1965 the herein petitioners filed their answer to
the petition.
On September 10,
1965 the respondent court issued an order granting the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction applied for,
upon a bond of P5,000, and denying the plea for
dismissal of the petition. The said bond
having been filed, it accordingly issued the corresponding writ of preliminary
injunction.
Hence, the present
petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, which
raises two issues, namely, (1) whether the respondent court acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in granting a writ of preliminary injunction against the
petitioners, and (2) whether the lower court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of and grant the reliefs prayed for in its
civil case 62144.
On October 1, 1965 this
Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent court
“from executing or implementing the order dated September 10, 1965 and the
writ of preliminary injunction dated September 13, 1965, and otherwise taking
further cognizance of or in any manner assuming jurisdiction” over civil
case 62144, and enjoining the respondent corporation “from conducting any
logging operations in the forest area formerly covered by Ordinary Timber
License No. 181-’63 (New), or any other forest area without license from the
Director of Forestry.”
We find for the
petitioners.
Only the Bureau of
Forestry has jurisdiction to grant licenses for the taking of forest products,
pursuant to section 1816 of the Revised Administrative Code, which states:
“Jurisdiction of Bureau of Forestry. – The Bureau of Forestry shall have
jurisdiction and authority over the demarcation, protection, management,
reproduction, reforestation, occupancy, and use of all public forests and
forest reserves and over the granting of licenses for game and fish, and for
the taking of forest products, including stone and earth therefrom.”
That
the authority for the cutting, gathering or removal of forest products shall
only be upon license to be issued by the Bureau of Forestry, is further
stressed by section 1831 of the said Code, thus:
“License required for taking or removal of forest products. – Except as herein provided, forest products
shall be cut, gathered or removed in or from any forest only upon license from
the Bureau of Forestry.”
There is no dispute that the respondent corporation was issued
Ordinary Timber License 181-’63 (new) by the Bureau of Forestry on June 20,
1962, but the said license, by its own terms, expired on June 30, 1963.
The respondent corporation, however, insists that its timber
license still exists because it filed an application for the renewal thereof
and paid the corresponding fees therefor, duly
accepted by the Bureau of Forestry, which accordingly forwarded a proposed
license (Ordinary Timber License 642-’64) to the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources.
It is true that the respondent corporation filed on June 28, 1963
an application for renewal of license.
The said application was however rejected by the Director of Forestry
because foresters of the Bureau of Forestry found that during the life term of
its license the said respondent corporation had been cutting logs outside its
licensed area and invoicing the same under its Ordinary Timber License 181-’63
(new). Thus, in the 1st Indorsement of District Forester Eugenio
D. Rebosura, dated June 28, 1963, the said official
stated that as of May 28, 1963, the respondent corporation had invoiced under
the said license 7,746.15 cubic meters of timber, although its operations had
been confined to the construction of logging roads leading to its licensed
area. In fact, the said respondent
violated not only the terms and conditions of its expired timber license but
also the rules and regulations of the Bureau of Parks and Wildlife, in that it
had been constructing a logging road through the Mainit
Hot Springs National Park leading to its licensed area even before the approval
of its road right-of-way permit by the Bureau of Parks and Wildlife. The right-of-way permit 15 issued to it was
approved only on December 19, 1963 by Undersecretary Benito Montinola,
the application for which appears to have been filed on or about June 25, 1963,
but the records show that the said respondent corporation had been constructing
a logging road through the Mainit Hot Springs
National Park leading to its licensed area as early as June 17, 1963.
We do not accord credit to the respondent corporation’s argument
that the acceptance by the Bureau of Forestry of the fees for renewal of its license
for the year 1963-1964 is tantamount to granting it the authority and license
to continue operating its forest concession under its old and expired
license. The payment of the said fees is
a requirement to be complied with before
the application for renewal may be processed.
The said fees were refundable if the license was denied. The mere filing therefore of an application
and the payment of fees do not entitle the applicant to begin logging
operations. A license must first be
issued. The respondent corporation was
well aware of this fact, since it is so provided in its application. Thus, paragraphs 14, and 18 of the said
application read as follows:
“14. To show my good faith in filing this
application, I am herewith enclosing the required application fee of P130.00
[in case this application is for a bid or proposal in response to a notice]
together with the license fee of P493.85 and bond deposit of P5,250.00 [if application is for the renewal of a license] in
cash, by certified check or post office money order. [The latter two are refundable if the applicant is not
granted a license.]”
“18. I understand that the mere filing of an application and/or payment of
necessary fees does not entitle me to begin operation until the necessary license is properly issued.“(emphasis supplied)
Neither can the said respondent corporation buttress its position
by the mere fact that on September 6, 1963, the acting Director of Forestry
forwarded the proposed license No. 642-’64 to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for approval. For, the said proposed license was recalled
by the Director of Forestry, as shown by his letter of September 24, 1963, and
the same was returned unapproved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. What is more significant is
that the said proposed license was never issued and released to the respondent
corporation, but, on the contrary, its application for renewal of license was
denied by the Director of Forestry on November 5, 1963. It is clear therefore that the supposed
extension dated August 8, 1963 of its license was not approved by the
Department Secretary as required, and without such approval, the extension was
ineffective.
Thus, with the expiration on June 30, 1963 of the respondent
corporation’s timber license and the
denial of its application for renewal thereof by the Director of
Forestry, the right or authority of the respondent corporation to continue
cutting, gathering or removing logs had ceased.
It could not and can no longer continue conducting logging operations
even within the area covered by its expired
license.
However, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
respondent court would allow the respondent corporation to continue cutting,
gathering and removing timber from the concession area in question without
license duly issued by the Director of Forestry, in violation of the aforequoted provisions of section 1831 of the Revised
Administrative Code. The said writ,
being against the law, is mill and void.[1]
The respondent court, in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction and thus
allowing the respondent corporation to conduct logging operations in the timber
concession area in question, had in effect arrogated unto itself the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and had resuscitated in 1965 a timber
license that expired on June 30, 1963.
Clearly, it acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance
of the writ of preliminary injunction complained of.
At all events, even if the renewal permit for 1964-65 – the last
renewal applied for by the respondent corporation – were duly approved and
granted, it would have anyway expired on June 30,
1965. It follows that the said
respondent corporation had no cause of action when it went to court on August
12, 1965.
ACCORDINGLY, the order dated September 10, 1965 and the
writ of preliminary injunction dated September 13, 1965 issued by the
respondent court are declared null and void and set aside; the preliminary
injunction issued by this Court on October 1, 1965 is hereby made
permanent. Civil case 62144 is hereby
ordered dismissed. Costs
against the respondent corporation.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.
[1]
Vivo vs. Arca, 9 SCRA 878
(1963).