FACT:
On February 24, 1998, a water craft M/L Hadja, from Bongao, Tawi-tawi, was docked at the port area of Tacloban City with a load of 100 tons of tanbark. Robert Hernandez was the consignee to said cargo. While the cargo was being unloaded, the NBI decided to verify the shipment's accompanying documents where it was found to be irregular and incomplete. Consequently, the NBI ordered the unloading of the cargo stopped. As a result, the tanbark, the boat, and three cargo trucks were seized and impounded.
On March 5, 1998, NBI-EVRO 8 Regional Director Carlos S. Caabay filed a Criminal Complaint for the violation of Section 68 (now Section 78) of P.D. 705, The Forestry Code of the Philippines as amended, against the captain and crew of the M/L Hadja, Robert Hernandez, Tandico Chion, Alejandro K. Bautista, a forster, and Marcial A. Dalimot, a Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer of the DENR. Bautista and Dalimot were also charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, along with Habi A. Alih and Khonrad V. Mohammad of the CENRO-Bongao, Tawi-tawi. The complaint was docketed as I.S. No. 98-296 at the Prosecutor's Office of Tacloban City.
On March 10, 1998, DENR took possession of the cargo, the boat and the three trucks, through the previous direction of the complainant. Due notice were issued to the consignee, Robert Hernandez and the NBI Regional Director.
On March 11, 1998, Hernandez filed in the RTC of Leyte a case for replevin to recover the items seized by the DENR and was docketed as Civil Case No. 98-03-42.
On March 16, 1998, subpoenas were issued to the respondents in I.S. No. 98-296 and on March 17, 1998, confiscation proceedings were conducted by the PENRO-Leyte, with both Hernandez and his counsel present.
On March 19, 1998, herein respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan issued a writ of replevin and directed Sheriff IV Leonardo V. Aguilar to take possession of the items seized by the DENR and to deliver them to Hernandez after the expiration of five days. Respondent Sheriff served a copy of the writ to the Philippine Coast Guard station in Tacloban City at around 5:45 p.m. of March 19, 1998.
Thus, the filing of this Administrative complaint against respondent via a letter addressed to the Chief Justice and dated April 13, 1998, by Atty. Tabao.
Complainant avers that replevin is not available when properties sought to be recovered are involved in criminal proceedings. He also submits that respondent judge is either grossly ignorant of the law and jurisprudence or purposely disregarded them.
Complainant states that the respondent sheriff had the duty to safeguard M/L Hadja and to prevent it from leaving the port of Tacloban City, after he had served a writ of seizure therefor on the Philippine Coast Guard. According to the complainant, on March 19, 1998, the vessel left the port of Tacloban City, either through respondent sheriff's gross negligence or his direct connivance with interested parties. Moreover, complainant pointed out that respondent sheriff released the seized tanbark to Hernandez within the five day period that he was supposed to keep it under the terms of the writ, thereby effectively altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying the integrity of said evidence.
Respondent judge claim that the charge of gross ignorance of the law was premature since there is a pending motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the replevin case. Further, he claimed that he was unaware of the existence of I.S. No. 98-296 and upon learning of the same, he issued an order dated March 25, 1998, suspending the transfer to Hernandez of possession of the subject items, pending resolution of an urgent manifestation by the complainant. Respondent judges stresses that the writ of replevin was issued in strict compliance with the requirements laid down in Rule 60 of the Revised Rule of Court. He also pointed out that no apprehension report was issued by the NBI regarding the shipment and neither did the DENR issue a seizure report.
Respondent sheriff submits that he served the writ of replevin on the Coast Guard to prevent the departure of subject vessel since he does not have the means to physically prevent the vessel from sailing. He further claimed that he verified the status of the cargo with DENR and that it came from a legitimate source except that the shipment documents were not in order. Respondent sheriff contends that it was his ministerial duty to serve the writ of replevin, absent any instruction to the contrary.
The Office of the Court Administrator, in a report dated April 8, 1999, recommended that the judge be fined in the amount of P15,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law and that the charges against respondent sheriff be dismissed for lack of merit.
Complainant states that the respondent sheriff had the duty to safeguard M/L Hadja and to prevent it from leaving the port of Tacloban City, after he had served a writ of seizure therefor on the Philippine Coast Guard. According to the complainant, on March 19, 1998, the vessel left the port of Tacloban City, either through respondent sheriff's gross negligence or his direct connivance with interested parties. Moreover, complainant pointed out that respondent sheriff released the seized tanbark to Hernandez within the five day period that he was supposed to keep it under the terms of the writ, thereby effectively altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying the integrity of said evidence.
Respondent judge claim that the charge of gross ignorance of the law was premature since there is a pending motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the replevin case. Further, he claimed that he was unaware of the existence of I.S. No. 98-296 and upon learning of the same, he issued an order dated March 25, 1998, suspending the transfer to Hernandez of possession of the subject items, pending resolution of an urgent manifestation by the complainant. Respondent judges stresses that the writ of replevin was issued in strict compliance with the requirements laid down in Rule 60 of the Revised Rule of Court. He also pointed out that no apprehension report was issued by the NBI regarding the shipment and neither did the DENR issue a seizure report.
Respondent sheriff submits that he served the writ of replevin on the Coast Guard to prevent the departure of subject vessel since he does not have the means to physically prevent the vessel from sailing. He further claimed that he verified the status of the cargo with DENR and that it came from a legitimate source except that the shipment documents were not in order. Respondent sheriff contends that it was his ministerial duty to serve the writ of replevin, absent any instruction to the contrary.
The Office of the Court Administrator, in a report dated April 8, 1999, recommended that the judge be fined in the amount of P15,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law and that the charges against respondent sheriff be dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge was grossly ignorant of the law and jurisprudence for issuing the writ of replevin.
RULING:
The complaint for replevin states that the shipment of tanbark and the vessel on which it was loaded were seized by the NBI for verification of supporting documents. It also stated that the NBI turned over the seized items to the DENR "for official disposition and appropriate action". These allegations would have been sufficient to alert the respondent judge that the DENR had custody of the seized items and that administrative proceedings may have already been commenced concerning the shipment.
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence. Also, the plaintiff in the replevin suit who seeks to recover the shipment from the DENR had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him. Prudent thing for the respondent judge to do was to dismiss the replevin outright.
Under Section 78-A of the Revised Forestry Code, the DENR secretary or his representatives may order the confiscation of forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, possessed or abandoned, including the conveyances involved in the offense.
It was declared by the Court in Paat vs. Court of Appeals the that enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the DENR. The DENR should be given free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The court held that the assumption of the trial court of the replevin suit constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of the administrative ageny's prerogative. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged within an administrative body of special competence.
The respondent judge's act of taking cognizance of the subject replevin suit clearly demonstrates ignorance of the law. He has fallen short of the standard set forth in Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, that a judge must be an embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. To measure up to this standard, justices are expected to keep abreast of all laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Failure to follow basic legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of the law from which no one may be excused, not even a judge.
On the charges against respondent sheriff, the Court agreed with the OCA that they should be dismissed. Respondent sheriff merely complied with his material duty to serve the writ with reasonable celerity and to execute it promptly in accordance with the mandates.
Respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan was found liable for gross ignorance of the law and is accordingly ordered to pay a fine of 10,000. 00, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely. The complaint against respondent Sheriff IV Leonardo V. Aguilar is dismissed for lack of merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment