Paat Vs Court of Appeals

CASE TITLE: Paat vs Court of Appeals ASSIGNED STUDENT:
G.R. NO.: 111107 Delalamon, Vincent Amadeus B.

CASE DATE: January 10, 1997
PONENTE: Torres, Jr., J.:
FACTS:
• On May 19, 1989, the truck of private respondent Victoria De Guzman was seized by the DENR
because the driver could not produce the required documents for the forest products found
concealed in the truck.
• Petitioner Jovito Layugan, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO)
issued on May 23, 1989 an order of confiscation of the truck and gave the owner thereof fifteen (15)
days within which to submit an explanation why the truck should not be forfeited.
• Private respondents, however, failed to submit the required explanation
• On June 22, 1989, Regional Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan of DENR sustained petitioner
Layugan's action of confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the truck invoking Section 68-A of
Presidential Decree No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277.
Sec. 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department or His Duly Authorized Representative To
Order Confiscation. In all cases of violation of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations,
the Department Head or his duly authorized representative, may order the confiscation of any forest
products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used
either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in
accordance with pertinent laws, regulations and policies on the matter.
• Private respondents filed a letter of reconsideration dated June 28, 1989 of the June 22, 1989 order
of Executive Director Baggayan, which was, however, denied in a subsequent order of July 12,
1989.
• Subsequently, the case was brought by the petitioners to the Secretary of DENR pursuant to private
respondents' statement in their letter dated June 28, 1989 that in case their letter for
reconsideration would be denied then "this letter should be considered as an appeal to the
Secretary.
• Pending resolution however of the appeal, a suit for replevin, docketed as Civil Case 4031, was
filed by the private respondents against petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan with
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2 of Cagayan, which issued a writ ordering the return of the truck
to private respondents.
• Petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan filed a motion to dismiss with the trial court
contending, inter alia, that private respondents had no cause of action for their failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
• The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated December 28, 1989. Their motion for
reconsideration having been likewise denied, a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioners with
the respondent Court of Appeals which sustained the trial court's order ruling that the question
involved is purely a legal question.
• On September 9, 1993 petitioners brought the case to SC with prayer for temporary restraining
order and/or preliminary injunction, seeking to reverse the decision of the respondent Court of
Appeals.
ISSUE(S):
Whether the Secretary of DENR and his representatives were empowered to confiscate and forfeit
conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products in favor of the government?
RULING:
YES, the Petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated October 16, 1991
and its Resolution dated July 14, 1992 are hereby SET ASIDE AND REVERSED; the Restraining Order
promulgated on September 27, 1993 is hereby made permanent; and the Secretary of DENR is directed to
resolve the controversy with utmost dispatch.
RATIONALE / LAWS:
It is important to point out that the 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
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. By the very nature of its function, the DENR should be
given a free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its
jurisdiction.
P.D. 705 Section 68-A as amended by Executive Order no. 277
Sec. 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department or His Duly Authorized Representative To Order
Confiscation. In all cases of violation of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, the
Department Head or his duly authorized representative, may order the confiscation of any forest products
illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used either by land,
water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws,
regulations and policies on the matter.
It is, thus, clear from the foregoing provision that the Secretary and his duly authorized representatives are
given the authority to confiscate and forfeit any conveyances utilized in violating the Code or other forest
laws, rules and regulations. The phrase "to dispose of the same" is broad enough to cover the act of
forfeiting conveyances in favor of the government.

Paat Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paat Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paat Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE TITLE: Paat vs Court of Appeals ASSIGNED STUDENT:

G.R. NO.: 111107 Delalamon, Vincent Amadeus B.

P.D. 705 Section 68-A as amended by Executive Order no. 277

You might also like