DAYLINDA A. LAGUA, MANUEL P. LAGUA, HONORATO ACHANAR !"# RE$TITUTO DONGA, petitioners, vs. HONORA%LE &ICENTE N. CU$I, 'R., i" (i) *!p!*i+, !) Pr-)i#i". '/#.- o0 +(- Co/r+ o0 1ir)+ I")+!"*- o0 D!2!o Ci+,, %r!"*( I, CON$TANCIO MAGLANA !"# +(- EA$TCOA$T DE&ELOPMENT ENTERPRI$E$,respondents. Wilfred D. Asis for petitioner. Carlos A. Carbonilla for respondents.
GUTIERRE, 'R., J.: This petition for mandamus originated from a complaint for damages which was instituted ! the petitioners against the private respondents for closing a logging road without authorit!. In their complaint, the petitioners, alleged, among others" In #aragraph $%a&" a& On ' (anuar! ')*+, ,tt!. -rnesto Nomrado, legal counsel for defendants, issued a memorandum to the .hief Securit! /uard of Defendant -astcoast directing the latter to prevent the passage of #laintiff 0aguas1 hauling truc2s loaded with logs for the (apanese vessel %there were no other truc2s hauling logs at that time& on the national highwa! loading towards where the vessel was erthed. In compliance with this directive, the securit! force of Defendant -astcoast closed the road to the use ! plaintiffs truc2s and other e3uipments and effectivel! prevented their passage thereof while the vehicles and truc2s of other people were curiousl! not distured and were allowed passess on the same road. It resulted that the loading of logs on the 45S 67!ofu2u 4aru6 was discontinued. , 8ero8ed cop! of this Nomrado memorandum, the original of which is however in the possession of defendants, is hereto attached as ,nne8 6.6 and made an integral part hereof. In #aragraph $%&" & 9pon representations made to Indalecio 0. ,spiras, ,cting Station Officer:in: .harge, ;<D 0ama=on <orest Station, and in response to plaintiff 0aguas1 complaint, a letter dated > (anuar! ')*+ was addressed ! ,spiras to the Resident 4anager of Defendant -astcoast with instructions to open and allow #laintiff 0aguas1 truc2s and machineries to pass that road closed to them %ut not to others& ! Defendant -astcoast. , 8ero8ed cop! of this letter is hereto attached as ,nne8 6D6 and made a part hereof. ,ccordingl!, Sagrado .onstantino, Resident 4anager of Defendant -astcoast, issued an order to their .hief Securit! /uard for the latter to compl! with the ,spiras letter. These events, however, too2 the whole da! of > (anuar! ')*+ so that notwithstanding the lifting of the road closure no hauling of logs could e made ! #laintiff 0aguas on that da!. In #aragraph $%c&" c& ?hen #laintiffs 0aguas were alread! resuming the hauling operations of their logs towards the (apanese Vessel on @ (anuar! ')*+, again that same road, onl! the da! efore ordered ! the ;<D to e opened for use and passage ! plaintiffs, was closed to them ! Defendant -astcoast1s securit! men upon a radio message order of Defendant 4aglana. -ven the vessel 45S 67!ofu2u 4aruwas6 ordered ! Defendant 4aglana to untie her anchor contrar! to e8isting laws, rules and regulations of the ;ureau of .ustoms and the #hilippine .oastguard. , 8ero8ed cop! of the 4aglana message, the original of which is in the possession of the defendants, is hereto attached as ,nne8 6-6 and made an integral part hereof. ,nd in paragraph $%d&" d& /iven no recourse in the face of the latant and illegal closure of the road in defiance of ;<D orders to the contrar! ! the Defendant -astcoast through the order of Defendant 4aglana, #laintiff 0aguas had to depart postpaste to 4ati, Davao Oriental, from ;aganga where the shipment and the road closure were made, to see2 the assistance of the #. thereat. Thus on $ (anuar! ')*+, #rovincial .ommander ,lfonso 0umeao issued a directive to the #. Detachment .ommander at ;aganga to lift the illegal chec2point made ! defendants. , 8ero8ed cop! of this directive is hereto attached as ,nne8 6<6 and made a part hereof. %Rollo, pp. $*:$A& The private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds, namel!" %'& lac2 of =urisdiction, and %>& lac2 of cause of action. The private respondents e8tended that as the acts complained of ! the petitioners arose out of the legitimate e8ercise of respondent -astcoast Development -nterprises, Inc., rights as a timer licensee, more particularl! in the use of its logging roads, therefore, the resolution of this 3uestion is properl! and legall! within the ;ureau of <orest Development, citing as authorit! #residential Decree %#.D.& No. *B$. The private respondents also argued that petitioner Da!linda 0aguas has no capacit! to sue as her name was not registered as an 6agent6 or 6dealer6 of logs in the ;ureau of <orestr!. On ,ugust @, ')*+, the trial court issued the 3uestioned order dismissing the petitioners1 complaint on the asis of the aovementioned grounds. It ruled" The .ourt agrees with the defendants that under the law, the ;ureau of <orest Development has the e8clusive power to regulate the use of logging road and to determine whether their use is in violation of laws. Since the damages claimed to have een sustained ! the plaintiffs arose from the alleged illegal closure of a logging road C in the language of the defendants on page @ of their motion to dismiss. The simple fact is there was an illegal closure of the national highwa! affecting the private rights of the plaintiffs who sustained damages and losses as a conse3uence thereof C the 3uestion whether or not the road was illegall! closed must first e determined ! the ;ureau of <orest Development. If the said ;ureau finds that the road was legall! closed, an action for damages ma! e filed in .ourt. Otherwise, no civil action would prosper, for there would e no tortious act. %Rollo, pp. $A:+)&. 888 888 888 ,fter the logging road was closed for the first time, more so after the second time, ! the defendant -astcoast Development -nterprises, Inc., the plaintiffs should have as2ed the ;ureau of <orest Development to determine the legalit! or illegalit! of the closure since the! wanted to file, as the! did file, an action for damages ased on the alleged illegal closure. The fact that the letter of (anuar! >, ')*+, directed defendant -astcoast Development -nterprises, Inc. to open the road does not necessaril! mean that the ;ureau of <orest Development had found that the closure was illegal. There must e a positive finding that the closure was illegal. ... %Rollo, p. +B& 888 888 888 ,s an attorne!:in:fact, Da!linda ,. 0agua is not entitled to, and cannot cannot claim, damages in her personal capacit!. <or she could not have sustained damages as a result of the alleged illegal closure of the road in her personal capacit! while acting in her representative capacit!. So if she and her husand sustained damages, it must have een ecause their legal rights were violated ! a tortious act committed ! the defendants other than the alleged illegal closure of the road. ;ut as stated elsewhere in this order, even the plaintiffs admit that the damages the! claimed to have sustained arose from the alleged illegal closure of the logging road. ,ssuming, however, that another tortious act violated the legal rights of the 0aguas, still the! could not =oint ,chanDar and Donga in this complaint for there would e mis=oinder of parties. %Rollo, pp. +':+>& Hence, this petition for mandamus which we will treat as a petition for certiorari in the interest of =ustice. The petitioners maintain that since their action is for damages, the regular courts have =urisdiction over the same. ,ccording to them, the respondent court had no asis for holding that the ;ureau of <orestr! Development must first determine that the closure of a logging road is illegal efore an action for damages can e instituted. ?e agree. #.D. No. *B$ upon which the respondent court ased its order does not vest an! power in the ;ureau of <orest Development to determine whether or not the closure of a logging road is legal or illegal and to ma2e such determination a pre:re3uisite efore an action for damages ma! e maintained. 4oreover, the complaint instituted ! the petitioners is clearl! for damages ased on the alleged illegal closure of the logging road. ?hether or not such closure was illegal is a matter to e estalished on the part of the petitioners and a matter to e disproved ! the private respondents. This should appropriatel! e threshed out in a =udicial proceeding. It is e!ond the power and authorit! of the ;ureau of <orest Development to determine the unlawful closure of a passage wa!, much less award or den! the pa!ment of damages ased on such closure. Not ever! activit! inside a forest area is su=ect to the =urisdiction of the ;ureau of <orest Development. ,s we have held in Ateneo de Manila University v. Court of appeals %'E$ S.R, 'BB, ''B&" The issue in this court was whether or not the private respondents can recover damages as a result of the of their son from the petitioner universit!. This is a purel! legal 3uestion and nothing of an a administrative nature is to or can e done %/onDales v. Hechanova, ) S.R, >@BF Tapales v. 9niversit! of the #hilippines, * S.R, $@@F 0imoico v. ;oard of ,dministrators. %#(,& '@@ S.R, E@F 4alaanan v. Ramonte, '>) S.R, @$)&. The case was rought pursuant to the law on damages provided in the .ivil .ode. The =urisdiction to tr! the case elongs to the civil courts. The private respondents, in their memorandum filed with the respondent court, alleged that the logs of petitioner ,chanDar were cut down and removed outside of the area granted to the latter under his #rivate Timer 0icense No. > and therefore inside the concession area of respondent compan!1s Timer 0icense ,greement. This, apparentl!, was the reason wh! the respondent compan! denied to the petitioners the use of the logging road. If we hold the respondents to their contention that the ;ureau of <orest Development has the power and authorit! not onl! to regulate the use or loc2ade of logging roads ut also to e8clusivel! determine the legalit! of a closure of such roads, wh! then did the! ta2e it upon themselves to initiall! close the disputed logging road efore ta2ing up the matter with the ;ureau and wh! did the! close it again notwithstanding the ;ureau1s order to open it after the petitioners had dul! informed the said ;ureau of the closureG To use the ;ureau1s authorit! which the respondents ignored to now defeat the court1s =urisdiction would e totall! unacceptale. ?e, therefore, find that the trial court committed grave ause of discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of lac2 of =urisdiction over the su=ect matter. ,nent the legal capacit! to sue of the petitioners, spouses 0aguas, we affirm the trial court1s ruling that since the! were mere agents of petitioners ,chanDar and Donga and were suing in their own ehalf, the! did not have the capacit! to sue for damages. The! are not the real parties in interest. However, the complaint can still e maintained. It cannot e dismissed ecause the real parties in interest, ,chanDar and Donga were also plaintiffs. Thus, the trial court should have ordered onl! the dropping of the names of the spouses 0aguas pursuant to Section '', Rule @ of the Revised Rules of .ourt ut not the dismissal of the complaint. ?H-R-<OR-, in view of the foregoing, the petition is here! /R,NT-D. The 3uestioned order of the respondent court is S-T ,SID- and this case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for trial on the merits SO ORD-R-D. Fernan, (Chairman), Feliciano, idin and Cortes, !!., concur.