FACTS:
On August 9, 1988 two police officers of Marikina Police Station, Sub-Station III, intercepted a six-wheeler truck carrying 4,000 board feet of narra lumber as it was cruising along Marcos Highway. They apprehended the truck driver, private respondent Jesus Sy, and brought the truck and its cargo to the Personnel Investigation Committee/Special Actions and Investigation Division (PIC/SAID) of DENR Office in Quezon City. There, petitioner Atty. Vicente Robles of the PIC/SAID investigated them, and discovered the discrepancies in the documentation of the narra lumber.
What were declared in the documents were narra flitches, while the cargo of the truck consisted of narra lumber. In the documents, the plate numbers of the truck supposed to carry the cargo bear the numbers BAX-404, PEC-492 or NSN-267, while the plate of the truck apprehended is NVT-881. Considering that the cargo is lumber, the transport should have been accompanied by a Certificate of Lumber Origin, scale sheet of said lumber and not by a Certificate of Timber Origin. The Log Sale Purchase Agreement presented is between DSM Golden Cup International as the Seller and Bonamy Enterprises as the buyer/consignee and not with Lily Francisco Lumber Hardware.
These are in violation of Bureau of Forestry Development (BFD) Circular No. 10 which requires possession or transportation of lumber to be supported by the following documents:
- Certificate of Lumber Origin (CLO) which shall be issued only by the District Forester, or in his absence, the Assistant District Forester;
- Sales Invoice;
- Delivery Receipt; and
- Tally Sheets.
Such omission is punishable under Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code. Thus, petitioner Atty. Robles issued a temporary seizure order and seizure receipt for the narra lumber and the six-wheeler truck.
On January 20, 1989, petitioner Fulgencio S. Factoran, then Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources issued an order for the confiscation of the narra lumber and the six-wheeler truck
Private respondents neither asked for reconsideration of nor appealed the said order to the Office of the President. Consequently, the narra lumber and six-wheeler truck were forfeited in favor of the government and were later on advertised to be sold at a public auction on March 20, 1989.
On March 17, 1989, private respondents filed a complaint with prayer for the issuance of the writs of replevin and preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order for the recovery of the confiscated items, and to enjoin the panned auction sale of the subject narra lumber, respectively.
On the same day, the trial court issued an order directing the parties to desist from proceeding with the planned auction sale and setting the hearing for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction on March 27, 1989.
On March 20, 1989, private respondents filed and Ex-Parte motion for Release and Return of Goods and Documents (Replevin) supported by an Affidavit for Issuance of Writ of Replevin and Preliminary Injunction and a Replevin Bond in the amount of P180,000.00. The trial court granted the writ of replevin on the same day and directed the petitioners "to deliver the xxx [n]arra lumber, original documents and truck with plate no. NJT 881 to the custody of the plaintiffs and/or their representatives x x x".
On March 22, 1989, the trial court issued a writ of seizure. However, petitioners refused to comply therewith. Sheriff David G. Brodett of Branch 80 of the RTC of Quezon City, reported that the petitioners prevented him from removing the subject properties from the DENR compound and transferring them to the Mobile Unit compound of the Quezon City Police Force. He then agreed to a constructive possession of the properties. On that same day, petitioners filed a Manifestation stating their intention to file a counterbond under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court to stay the execution of the writ of seizure and to post a cash bond in the amount of P180,000.00. The trial court did not oblige the petitioners for they failed to serve a copy of the Manifestation on the private respondents. Petitioners then made immediately the required service and tendered the cash counterbond but it was refused, petitioners' Manifestation having already been set for hearing on March 30, 1989.
On March 27, 1989, petitioners made another attempt to post a counterbond but was also denied for the same reason.
On the same day, private respondents filed a motion to declare petitioners in contempt for disobeying the writ of seizure. The trial court gave petitioners 24 hours to answer the motion. Hearing was scheduled on March 30, 1989.
On March 29, 1989, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and/or Mandamus to annul the orders of the trial court dated March 20, 1989 and March 27, 1989.
On March 30, 1989, the Court of Appeals granted petitioners temporary relief in the form of a temporary restraining order (TRO).
On September 11, 1989, the Court of Appeals converted the TRO into a writ of preliminary injunction upon filing by petitioners of a bond in the amount of P180,000.00.
On March 30, 1990, the Court of Appeals lifted the writ of preliminary injunction and dismissed the petition. It declared that the complaint for replevin filed by the private respondents complied with the requirements of an affidavit and bond under Sec. 1 and 2 of Rule 60 of the Revised Rules of Court, issuance of the writ of replevin was mandatory.
As for the contempt charges against the petitioners, the Court of Appeals believed that the same were sufficiently based on a written charge by private respondents and the reports submitted by the Sheriff.
On April 25, 1990, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision but it was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated May 18, 1990.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC was correct in the issuance of a writ of replevin and the Court of Appeals in dismissing the petition and lifting the preliminary injunction.
RULING:
Pursuant to Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 705, all actions and decision of the Director are subject to review, motu propio or upon appeal of any person aggrieved thereby, by the Department Head whose decision shall be final and executory after the lapse of 30 days from the receipt by the aggrieved party of said decision unless appealed to the President. The decision of the Department Head may not be reviewed by the courts except through a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition.
It was observed by the Court that herein respondents never appealed the confiscation order of the petitioner Secretary to the Office of the President.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is basic. Courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and proper authorities have been given an appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum.
It was pointed out by the Court in Paat vs. Court of Appeals that the enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest land fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the DENR. It held that assumption of the trial court of a replevin suit constitutes an encroachment into the domain of the administrative agency's prerogative. The doctrine of preliminary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
However, herein petitioners did not a motion to dismiss on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, it is deemed waived.
Nonetheless, the Court finds the petition impressed with merit.
First. A writ of replevin does not issue as a matter of course upon the applicant's filing of a bond and affidavit, as the Court of Appeals has wrongly put it. The mere filing of an affidavit, sans allegations therein that satisfy the requirements of Section 2 Rule 60 of the Revised Rules of Court, cannot justify the issuance of a writ of replevin. Wrongful detention of the properties sought in an action for replevin must be satisfactory established. If only mechanistic averment thereof is offered, the writ should not be issued.
In the case at bar, the taking of the subject property was within the administrative authority of the Secretary as provided by Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705. Thus, it is not wrongful and does not warrant the issuance of a writ of replevin prayed for by the private respondents.
Second. By virtue of the confiscation order by petitioner Secretary, the subject properties of private respondents were held in custodia legis and hence, beyond the reach of replevin. Property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process is deemed to be in custodia legis. So basic is this doctrine that it found inclusion in the 1997 amendments introduced to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Third. Petitioner Secretary's authority to confiscate forest products under SEction 68-A of P.D. No. 705 is distinct and independent of the confiscation of forest products in a criminal action provided for in Section 68 of P.D. No. 705.
Fourth. SEction 80 of P.D. No. 705 which requires the delivery of the seized forest products within six (6) hours from the time of the seizure to the appropriate official designated by law to conduct preliminary investigations applies only to criminal prosecutions provided for in Section 68 and not to administrative confiscation provided for in Section 68-A.
Fifth. Nothing in the records supports private respondents' allegation that their right to due process was violated as no investigation was conducted prior to confiscation of their properties.
Finally. The writ or seizure and the writ of replevin was issued by the trial court in grave abuse of its discretion. Thus, disobedience thereto cannot constitute indirect contempt of court which presupposes that the court order thereby violated was valid and legal. Without a lawful order being issued, no contempt of court could be committed.
The instant petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 30, 1990 and its Resolution dated May 18, 1990 were set aside. Respondent presiding judge of the RTC of Quezon City was permanently enjoined from enforcing the Orders dated March 20, 1989 and March 22, 1989, or if said orders had already been issued, said respondent judge was directed to render judgement of forfeiture of replevin bond filed by private respondents. Finally, the said respondent judge is hereby permanently enjoined from further acting on the Motion for Contempt filed by private respondents against petitioners.
Great article! Thanks for sharing! By the way, for great legal advice you may visit: http://ndvlaw.com/.
ReplyDelete