Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Facts

    Uploaded by

    Sonny
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition filed by Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co. seeking to reinstate its timber license agreement (TLA No. 87) that was cancelled in 1983 during the Marcos administration. The petition also sought to revoke another company's TLA (TLA No. 356) issued without public bidding. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by public respondents that would warrant issuing a writ of certiorari or granting other affirmative reliefs sought. While Ysmael had a TLA from 1965-1990, it was cancelled in 1983 pursuant to presidential instructions during the Marcos regime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts

    Uploaded by

    Sonny
    24 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition filed by Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co. seeking to reinstate its timber license agreement (TLA No. 87) that was cancelled in 1983 during the Marcos administration. The petition also sought to revoke another company's TLA (TLA No. 356) issued without public bidding. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by public respondents that would warrant issuing a writ of certiorari or granting other affirmative reliefs sought. While Ysmael had a TLA from 1965-1990, it was cancelled in 1983 pursuant to presidential instructions during the Marcos regime.

    Original Description:

    notes

    Original Title

    79538

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition filed by Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co. seeking to reinstate its timber license agreement (TLA No. 87) that was cancelled in 1983 during the Marcos administration. The petition also sought to revoke another company's TLA (TLA No. 356) issued without public bidding. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by public respondents that would warrant issuing a writ of certiorari or granting other affirmative reliefs sought. While Ysmael had a TLA from 1965-1990, it was cancelled in 1983 pursuant to presidential instructions during the Marcos regime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views3 pages

    Facts

    Uploaded by

    Sonny
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition filed by Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co. seeking to reinstate its timber license agreement (TLA No. 87) that was cancelled in 1983 during the Marcos administration. The petition also sought to revoke another company's TLA (TLA No. 356) issued without public bidding. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by public respondents that would warrant issuing a writ of certiorari or granting other affirmative reliefs sought. While Ysmael had a TLA from 1965-1990, it was cancelled in 1983 pursuant to presidential instructions during the Marcos regime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    THIRD DIVISION
    G.R. No. 79538

    October 18, 1990

    FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., petitioner,


    vs.
    THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
    NATURAL RESOURCES, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT
    and TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.
    Taada, Vivo & Tan for petitioner.
    Antonio E. Escober and Jurado Law Office for respondent Twin Peaks
    Development Corporation.

    FACTS :
    Soon after the change of government in February 1986, petitioner sent a letter
    dated March 17, 1986 to the Office of the President, and another letter dated
    April 2, 1986 to Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural Resources
    [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of its timber license agreement which was
    cancelled in August 1983 during the Marcos administration; (2) the revocation of
    TLA No. 356 which was issued to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation
    without public bidding and in violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations;
    and, (3) the issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take possession of all logs
    found in the concession area
    That on October 12, 1965, it entered into a timber license agreement
    designated as TLA No. 87 with the Department of Agriculture and Natural
    Resources, represented by then Secretary Jose Feliciano, wherein it was issued an
    exclusive license to cut, collect and remove timber except prohibited species
    within a specified portion of public forest land with an area of 54,920 hectares

    located in the municipality of Maddela, province of Nueva Vizcaya * from October


    12, 1965 until June 30, 1990;
    That on August 18, 1983, the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development
    [hereinafter referred to as "Bureau"], Director Edmundo Cortes, issued a
    memorandum order stopping all logging operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino
    provinces, and cancelling the logging concession of petitioner and nine other
    forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential instructions and a memorandum
    order of the Minister of Natural Resources Teodoro .
    On November 26, 1986, petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration was
    likewise denied.
    Hence, petitioner filed directly with this Court a petition for certiorari, with
    prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, on
    August 27, 1987. On October 13, 1987, it filed a supplement to its petition for
    certiorari. Thereafter, public and private respondents submitted their respective
    comments, and petitioner filed its consolidated reply thereto. In a resolution
    dated May 22, 1989, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not there is a grave abuse of discretion of on the part of public
    respondent

    Held: The present petition is DISMISSED petitioner having failed to make out a
    case showing grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents herein,
    the Court finds no basis to issue a writ of certiorari and to grant any of the
    affirmative reliefs sought.

    You might also like