Natural Resources and Environmental Law Case Digest

1. Tabao vs Judge Lilagan

Facts:

Respondent issued a writ of replevin regarding the seized tanbark by the DENR thru the order of the Prosecutor's Office, due to irregular and incomplete documents. The captain and crew of M/L Hadija was also charged for violation of Section 68 (now Section 78) of PD 705 or The Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines.

Issue(s):

1) Whether or not replevin is a proper remedy wherein the items sought to be recovered are proceeds from illegal logging.

2) Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

Ruling:

1) No, the regular courts has no jurisdiction over proceeds from illegal logging. Under the doctrine of primary jursidiction, courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence. That since the seized items is in the custody of the DENR, the latter has jurisdiction over the items and an adminitrative proceedings may have already been commenced concerning the shipment. And that Hernandez in the replevin suit, failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to him. 

2) Yes, the act of respondent taking cognizance of the replevin suit, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

2. Dagudag vs Paderanga

Facts:

Sometime in 2005, forest products were confiscated by the representatives of PNPRMG, DENR and the Philippine Coast Guard for non-compliance of pertinent documents, and since no one claimed ownership of the said items for a reasonable time, it was confiscated in favor of the government. Respondent-judge, in a case for issuance of writ of replevin, instituted by plaintiff Edma, issued and decided in favor of the plaintiff, for the return of the undocumented forest products. DENR, CENRO and herein petitioner filed a motion to quash the writ of replevin but was thereafter denied by herein respondent. The DENR counsel was also lambasted in the courtroom by herein respondent.

Issue(s):

1) Whether or not relevin is a proper remedy where the confiscated items were undocumented forest products under the custody of the DENR.

2) Whether or not the acts of herein respondent constitutes gross ignorance of the law and unbecoming of a judge.

Ruling:
1) No, The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws. That since the case is for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by EO 277 is under the jurisdiction of DENR.  That respondent should have dismissed the replevin suit outright for three reasons, to wit:

• That courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies, under the doctrine of administrative exhaustion;
• That also, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction courts cannot take cognizance of the cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence. That since the undocumented forest products are in the custody of the DENR, an administrative proceeding may have already been commenced; and,
• That the forest products are already in custody of law and thus cannot be the subject of replevin.

2) Yes, respondent, in taking cognizance of the replevin suit and thereafter issuing the said writ constitute gross ignorance of the law. Respondent also is liable for using inappropriate language in court, and repeated interruption of the lawyers and refusal to consider the motion to quash are undignified and very unbecoming of a judge. Considering also that this is his third offense.

3. Factoran vs CA

4. DENR vs Daraman

5. People vs Bagista

6. Dy vs CA

7. Lalican vs Vergara

8. Taopa vs People

9. Mustang Lumber Inc. vs CA

10. Paat vs CA