Legal Technique and Logic

Paat vs. CA G.R. No. 111107 - Jan. 10, 1997

The Court in a long line of cases has consistently held that The premature invocation of court’s intervention is fatal to one’s
before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, cause of action.
it is a pre-condition that he should avail of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him.

Hence, if a remedy within the administrative agency machinery can

still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then
such remedy should be exhausted first before court’s judicial power can
be sought.

It is no less true that the courts of justice However, we are not amiss to reiterate that the This doctrine is a relative one and its
for reasons of comity and convenience principle of exhaustion of administrative flexibility is called upon by the
will shy away from a dispute until the remedies, as tested by a battery of cases is not peculiarity of the factual and circumstantial
system of administrative redress has been an ironclad rule. settings of a case.
completed or complied with so as to give
the administrative agency concerned every
opportunity to correct its error and to
dispose of the case.

Hence, it is disregarded (1) when there is a violation of due process, (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question
xxx… xxx… xxx… (11) When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
It was easy to perceive then that the By appealing to him, they acknowledged
private respondents looked up to the the existence of an adequate and plain remedy
Secretary for the review and still available and open to them in the ordinary
disposition of their case. course of the law.

Thus, they cannot now, without violating Moreover, it is important to point out that the enforcement
the principle of exhaustion of administrative of forestry laws, rules and regulations, and the protection,
remedies, seek court’s intervention by filing development and management of forest lands fall within the
an action for replevin for the grant of their primary and special responsibilities of the DENR.
relief during the pendency of an administrative
proceeding.

The assumption of the trial court, therefore, of the replevin suit filed by
private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the
domain of the administrative agency’s prerogative.

To sustain the claim of private respondents would and fall within the ambit of excepted cases heretofore stated.
in effect bring the instant controversy beyond the
pale of the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies….

However, considering the circumstances prevailing in this case,

we can not but rule out these assertions of private respondents
to be without merit.
Indeed, deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration, as in the
instant case, when private respondents were undisputedly given the opportunity to present their side when they filed a letter of reconsideration dated June 28, 1989
which was, however, denied in an order of July 12, 1989.

In administrative proceedings, moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative process cannot be fully equated
with due process in its strict judicial sense.

Private respondents imputed the patent illegality A reading, however, of the law persuades us not to go along with private respondents’
of seizure and forfeiture of the truck because the thinking not only because the subject of the aforequoted provision apparently does not
administrative officers of the DENR allegedly mention nor include “conveyances” that can be the subject of confiscation by courts, but
have no power to perform these acts under the to a large extent, due to the fact that private respondents’ interpretation of the subject
law. They insisted that only the court is provision unduly restricts the clear intention of the law and inevitably reduces the other
authorized to confiscate and forfeit conveyances provision of Section 68-A which is quoted herein below:
used in transporting illegal forest products
as can be gleaned from the second paragraph “Administrative Authority of the Department or His Duly Authorized Representative To
of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by EO 277: 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
“The court shall further order the confiscation in confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or
favor of the government of the timber or any abandoned, and all CONVEYANCES used either by land, water, or air in the
forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent
or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipments, laws, regulations, and policies on the matter.”
implements, and tools illegally used in the area where
the timber or forest products are found.”

It is, thus, clear from the foregoing provision that the Secretary and his duly authorized representative are given
the authority to confiscate and forfeit any conveyances utilized in violating the Code or other forest laws, rules,
and regulations.