THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 79538 October 18, 1990

FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & O., IN., petitioner,
vs.
!"E #EP$!Y E%E$!I&E SERE!ARY, !"E SERE!ARY OF
EN&IRONMEN! AN# NA!$RAL RESO$RES, !"E #IRE!OR OF !"E
'$REA$ OF FORES! #E&ELOPMEN! ()* !+IN PEA,S
#E&ELOPMEN! AN# REAL!Y ORPORA!ION, respondents.
Taada, Vivo & Tan for petitioner.
Antonio E. Escober and Jurado Law Ofce for respondent Twin Peaks
eve!op"ent #orporation.
O$R!S, J.:
Soon after the change of government in Februar !"#$, petitioner sent a
%etter dated &arch !', !"#$ to the O(ce of the )resident, and another
%etter dated *pri% +, !"#$ to &inister ,rnesto &aceda of the &inistr of
Natura% Resources -&NR., see/ing0 1!2 the reinstatement of its timber
%icense agreement 3hich 3as cance%%ed in *ugust !"#4 during the &arcos
administration5 1+2 the revocation of T6* No. 47$ 3hich 3as issued to T3in
)ea/s Deve%opment and Rea%t 8orporation 3ithout pub%ic bidding and in
vio%ation of forestr %a3s, ru%es and regu%ations5 and, 142 the issuance of an
order a%%o3ing petitioner to ta/e possession of a%% %ogs found in the
concession area -*nne9es :$: and :': of the )etition5 Ro%%o, pp. 7;<$4..
)etitioner made the fo%%o3ing a%%egations0
1a2 That on October !+, !"$7, it entered into a timber %icense agreement
designated as T6* No. #' 3ith the Department of *gricu%ture and Natura%
Resources, represented b then Secretar =ose Fe%iciano, 3herein it 3as
issued an e9c%usive %icense to cut, co%%ect and remove timber e9cept
prohibited species 3ithin a speci>ed portion of pub%ic forest %and 3ith an
area of 7;,"+? hectares %ocated in the municipa%it of &adde%a, province of
Nueva Vi@caa - from October !+, !"$7 unti% =une 4?, !""?5
1b2 That on *ugust !#, !"#4, the Director of the Aureau of Forest
Deve%opment -hereinafter referred to as :Aureau:., Director ,dmundo
8ortes, issued a memorandum order stopping a%% %ogging operations in
Nueva Vi@caa and Buirino provinces, and cance%%ing the %ogging
concession of petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires, pursuant to
presidentia% instructions and a memorandum order of the &inister of
Natura% Resources Teodoro )ena -*nne9 :7: of the )etition5 Ro%%o, p. ;".5
1c2 that on *ugust +7, !"#4, petitioner received a te%egram from the
Aureau, the contents of 3hich 3ere as fo%%o3s0
)CRSC*NT TO TH, INSTRC8TIONS OF TH, )R,SID,NT DOC *R,
R,BC,ST,D TO STO) *66 6OEEINE O),R*TIONS TO 8ONS,RV,
R,&*ININE FOR,STS )6,*S, 8ONDC8T TH, ORD,R6D )C66<OCT
OF 6OEEINE &*8HIN,RI,S *ND ,BCI)&,NT *ND 8OORDIN*T,
FITH TH, R,S),8TIV, DISTRI8T FOR,ST,RS FOR TH,
INV,NTORD OF 6OES 8CT )RIOR TO THIS ORD,R TH,
SCA&ISSION OF * 8O&)6I*N8, R,)ORT FITHIN THIRTD D*DS
SH*66 A, *))R,8I*T,D G -*nne9 :;: of the )etition5 Ro%%o, p.
;#.5
1d2 That after the cance%%ation of its timber %icense agreement, it
immediate% sent a %etter addressed to then )resident Ferdinand &arcos
3hich sought reconsideration of the AureauHs directive, citing in support
thereof its contributions to a%%eging that it 3as not given the forest
conservation and opportunit to be heard prior to the cance%%ation of its
%ogging 74!, but no operations 1*nne9 :$: of the )etition5 Ro%%o, pp. 7?
favorab%e action 3as ta/en on this %etter5
1e2 That bare% one ear thereafter, appro9imate% one<ha%f or +$,???
hectares of the area former% covered b T6* No. #' 3as re<a3arded to
T3in )ea/s Deve%opment and Rea%it 8orporation under T6* No. 47$ 3hich
3as set to e9pire on =u% 4!, +??", 3hi%e the other ha%f 3as a%%o3ed to be
%ogged b Fi%ipinas 6oggers, Inc. 3ithout the bene>t of a forma% a3ard or
%icense5 and,
1f2 That the %atter entities 3ere contro%%ed or o3ned b re%atives or cronies
of deposed )resident Ferdinand &arcos. *cting on petitionerHs %etter, the
&NR through then &inister ,rnesto &aceda issued an order dated =u% ++,
!"#$ dening petitionerHs reIuest. The &inistr ru%ed that a timber %icense
3as not a contract 3ithin the due process c%ause of the 8onstitution, but
on% a privi%ege 3hich cou%d be 3ithdra3n 3henever pub%ic interest or
3e%fare so demands, and that petitioner 3as not discriminated against in
vie3 of the fact that it 3as among ten concessionaires 3hose %icenses
3ere revo/ed in !"#4. &oreover, emphasis 3as made of the tota% ban of
%ogging operations in the provinces of Nueva ,ciJa, Nueva Vi@caa, Buirino
and Ifugao imposed on *pri% +, !"#$, thus0
It shou%d be reca%%ed that -petitionerHs. ear%ier reIuest for
reinstatement has been denied in vie3 of the tota% ban of a%%
%ogging operations in the provinces of Nueva ,ciJa, Nueva
Vi@caa, Buirino and Ifugao 3hich 3as imposed for reasons of
conservation and nationa% securit.
The &inistr imposed the ban because it rea%i@es the great
responsibi%it it bear -sic. in respect to forest t considers itse%f
the trustee thereof. This being the case, it has to ensure the
avai%abi%it of forest resources not on% for the present, but a%so
for the future generations of Fi%ipinos.
On the other hand, the activities of the insurgents in these parts
of the countr are 3e%% documented. Their >nancia% demands on
%ogging concessionaires are 3e%% /no3n. The government,
therefore, is 3e%% 3ithin its right to deprive its enem of sources
of funds in order to preserve itse%f, its estab%ished institutions
and the %ibert and democratic 3a of %ife of its peop%e.
-*nne9 :": of the )etition, pp. +<;5 Ro%%o, pp. $7<$'..
)etitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforestated order reiterating,
among others. its reIuest that T6* No. 47$ issued to private respondent
be dec%ared nu%% and void. The &NR ho3ever denied this motion in an order
dated September !7, !"#$. stating in part0
Regarding -petitionerHs. reIuest that the a3ard of a +$,???
hectare portion of T6* No. #' to T3in )ea/s Rea%t Deve%opment
8orporation under T6* No. 47$ be dec%ared nu%% and void, su(ce
it to sa that the &inistr is no3 in the process of revie3ing a%%
contracts, permits or other form of privi%eges for the e9p%oration,
deve%opment, e9p%oitation, or uti%i@ation of natura% resources
entered into, granted, issued or acIuired before the issuance of
)roc%amation No. 4, other3ise /no3n as the Freedom
8onstitution for the purpose of amending, modifing or revo/ing
them 3hen the nationa% interest so reIuires.
The &inistr, through the Aureau of Forest Deve%opment, has
Jurisdiction and authorit over a%% forest %ands. On the basis of
this authorit, the &inistr issued the order banning a%% %ogging
operationsKactivities in Buirino province, among others, 3here
movantHs former concession area is %ocated. Therefore, the
issuance of an order disa%%o3ing an person or entit from
removing cut or uncut %ogs from the portion of T6* No. #', no3
under T6* No. 47$, 3ou%d constitute an unnecessar or
superLuous act on the part of the &inistr.
-*nne9 :!!: of the )etition, pp. 4<;5 Ro%%o, pp. ''<'#..
On November +$, !"#$, petitionerHs supp%ementa% motion for
reconsideration 3as %i/e3ise denied. &ean3hi%e, per &NR *dministrative
Order No. 7;, series of !"#$, issued on November +$, !"#$, the %ogging
ban in the province of Buirino 3as %ifted.
)etitioner subseIuent% appea%ed from the orders of the &NR to the O(ce
of the )resident. In a reso%ution dated =u% $, !"#', the O(ce of the
)resident, acting through then Deput ,9ecutive Secretar 8ata%ino
&acaraig, denied petitionerHs appea% for %ac/ of merit. The O(ce of the
)resident ru%ed that the appea% of petitioner 3as premature% >%ed, the
matter not having been terminated in the &NR. )etitionerHs motion for
reconsideration 3as denied on *ugust !;, !"#'.
Hence, petitioner >%ed direct% 3ith this 8ourt a petition for certiorari, 3ith
praer for the issuance of a restraining order or 3rit of pre%iminar
inJunction, on *ugust +', !"#'. On October !4, !"#', it >%ed a supp%ement
to its petition for certiorari. Thereafter, pub%ic and private respondents
submitted their respective comments, and petitioner >%ed its conso%idated
rep% thereto. In a reso%ution dated &a ++, !"#", the 8ourt reso%ved to
give due course to the petition.
*fter a carefu% stud of the circumstances in the case at bar, the 8ourt
>nds severa% factors 3hich mi%itate against the issuance of a 3rit of
certiorari in favor of petitioner.
!. First%, the refusa% of pub%ic respondents herein to reverse >na% and
e9ecutor administrative orders does not constitute grave abuse of
discretion amounting to %ac/ or e9cess of Jurisdiction.
It is an estab%ished doctrine in this Jurisdiction that the decisions and
orders of administrative agencies have upon their >na%it, the force and
binding eMect of a >na% Judgment 3ithin the purvie3 of the doctrine of res
$udicata. These decisions and orders are as conc%usive upon the rights of
the aMected parties as though the same had been rendered b a court of
genera% Jurisdiction. The ru%e of res $udicata thus forbids the reopening of a
matter once determined b competent authorit acting 3ithin their
e9c%usive Jurisdiction -%ee Ari%%antes v. 8astro, "" )hi%. ;"' 1!"7$25
Ipe/dJian &erchandising 8o., Inc. v. 8ourt of Ta9 *ppea%s, E.R. No. 6<!7;4?,
September 4?, !"$4, " S8R* '+5 San 6uis v. 8ourt of *ppea%s, E.R. No.
#?!$?, =une +$, !"#"..
In the case at bar, petitionerHs %etters to the O(ce of the )resident and the
&NR -no3 the Department of ,nvironment and Natura% Resources 1D,NR2
dated &arch !', !"#$ and *pri% +, !"#$, respective%, sought the
reconsideration of a memorandum order issued b the Aureau of Forest
Deve%opment 3hich cance%%ed its timber %icense agreement in !"#4, as
3e%% as the revocation of T6* No. 47$ subseIuent% issued b the Aureau
to private respondents in !"#;.
Aut as g%eaned from the record, petitioner did not avai% of its remedies
under the %a3, i.e. Section # of )res. Dec. No. '?7 as amended, for
attac/ing the va%idit of these administrative actions unti% after !"#$. A
the time petitioner sent its %etter dated *pri% +, !"#$ to the ne3%
appointed &inister of the &NR reIuesting reconsideration of the above
Aureau actions, these 3ere a%read sett%ed matters as far as petitioner 3as
concerned -See Rueda v. 8ourt of *grarian Re%ations, !?$ )hi%. 4?? 1!"7"25
Danan v. *spi%%era E.R. No. 6<!'4?7, November +#, !"$+, $ S8R* $?"5
Ocampo v. *rbo%eda E.R. No. 6<;#!"?, *ugust 4!, !"#', !74 S8R* 4';..
No particu%ar signi>cance can be attached to petitionerHs %etter dated
September !", !"#4 3hich petitioner c%aimed to have sent to then
)resident &arcos -*nne9 :$: of )etition, Ro%%o, pp. 7?<74., see/ing the
reconsideration of the !"#4 order issued b Director 8ortes of the Aureau.
It must be pointed out that the averments in this %etter are entire%
diMerent from the charges of fraud against o(cia%s under the previous
regime made b petitioner in its %etters to pub%ic respondents herein. In the
%etter to then )resident &arcos, petitioner simp% contested its inc%usion in
the %ist of concessionaires, 3hose %icenses 3ere cance%%ed, b defending its
record of se%ective %ogging and reforestation practices in the subJect
concession area. Det, no other administrative steps appear to have been
ta/en b petitioner unti% !"#$, despite the fact that the a%%eged fraudu%ent
scheme became apparent in !"#; as evidenced b the a3arding of the
subJect timber concession area to other entities in that ear.
+. &oreover, petitioner is prec%uded from avai%ing of the bene>ts of a 3rit
of certiorari in the present case because he fai%ed to >%e his petition 3ithin
a reasonab%e period.
The principa% issue ostensib% presented for reso%ution in the instant
petition is 3hether or not pub%ic respondents herein acted 3ith grave
abuse of discretion amounting to %ac/ or e9cess of Jurisdiction in refusing
to overturn administrative orders issued b their predecessors in the past
regime. Det, 3hat the petition u%timate% see/s is the nu%%i>cation of the
Aureau orders cance%%ing T6* No. #' and granting T6* No. 47$ to private
respondent, 3hich 3ere issued 3a bac/ in !"#4 and !"#;, respective%.
Once again, the fact that petitioner fai%ed to seasonab% ta/e Judicia%
recourse to have the ear%ier administrative actions revie3ed b the courts
through a petition for certiorari is preJudicia% to its cause. For a%though no
speci>c time frame is >9ed for the institution of a specia% civi% action for
certiorari under Ru%e $7 of the Revised Ru%es of 8ourt, the same must
neverthe%ess be done 3ithin a :reasonab%e time:. The ardstic/ to measure
the time%iness of a petition for certiorari is the :reasonab%eness of the
%ength of time that had e9pired from the commission of the acts
comp%ained of up to the institution of the proceeding to annu% the same:
-To%edo v. )ardo, E.R. No. 7$'$!, November !", !"#+, !!# S8R* 7$$, 7'!..
*nd fai%ure to >%e the petition for certiorari 3ithin a reasonab%e period of
time renders the petitioner susceptib%e to the adverse %ega% conseIuences
of %aches -&unicipa%it of 8arcar v. 8ourt of First Instance of 8ebu, E.R. No.
6<4!$+#, December +', !"#+, !!" S8R* 4"+2.
6aches is de>ned as the fai%ure or neg%ect for an unreasonab%e and
une9p%ained %ength of time to do that 3hich b e9ercising due di%igence,
cou%d or shou%d have been done ear%ier, or to assert a right 3ithin a
reasonab%e time, 3arranting a presumption that the part entit%ed thereto
has either abandoned it or dec%ined to assert it -TiJam v. Sibonghano, E.R.
No. 6<+!;7?, *pri% !7, !"$#, +4 S8R* +"5 Seno v. &angubat, E.R. No. 6<
;;44", December +, !"#', !7$ S8R* !!4.. The ru%e is that unreasonab%e
de%a on the part of a p%aintiM in see/ing to enforce an a%%eged right ma,
depending upon the circumstances, be destructive of the right itse%f. Veri%,
the %a3s aid those 3ho are vigi%ant, not those 3ho s%eep upon their rights
1Vi&i!antibus et non dor"ientibus $ura subveniunt2 -See Auenaventura v.
David, 4' )hi%. ;47 1!"!#2..
In the case at bar, petitioner 3aited for at %east three ears before it >na%%
>%ed a petition for certiorari 3ith the 8ourt attac/ing the va%idit of the
assai%ed Aureau actions in !"#4 and !"#;. 8onsidering that petitioner,
throughout the period of its inaction, 3as not deprived of the opportunit
to see/ re%ief from the courts 3hich 3ere norma%% operating at the time,
its de%a constitutes unreasonab%e and ine9cusab%e neg%ect, tantamount to
%aches. *ccording%, the 3rit of certiorari reIuiring the reversa% of these
orders 3i%% not %ie.
4. Fina%%, there is a more signi>cant factor 3hich bars the issuance of a
3rit of certiorari in favor of petitioner and against pub%ic respondents
herein. It is precise% this for 3hich prevents the 8ourt from departing from
the genera% app%ication of the ru%es enunciated above.
* cursor reading of the assai%ed orders issued b pub%ic respondent
&inister &aceda of the &NR 3hich 3ere ed b the O(ce of the )resident,
3i%% disc%ose pub%ic po%ic consideration 3hich eMective% foresta%% Judicia%
interference in the case at bar,
)ub%ic respondents herein, upon 3hose shou%ders rests the tas/ of
imp%ementing the po%ic to deve%op and conserve the countrHs natura%
resources, have indicated an ongoing department eva%uation of a%% timber
%icense agreements entered into, and permits or %icenses issued, under the
previous dispensation. In fact, both the e9ecutive and %egis%ative
departments of the incumbent administration are present% ta/ing stoc/ of
its environmenta% po%icies 3ith regard to the uti%i@ation of timber %ands and
deve%oping an agenda for future programs for their conservation and
rehabi%itation.
The ongoing administrative reassessment is apparent% in response to the
rene3ed and gro3ing g%oba% concern over the despo%iation of forest %ands
and the utter disregard of their crucia% ro%e in sustaining a ba%anced
eco%ogica% sstem. The %egitimac of such concern can hard% be disputed,
most especia%% in this countr. The 8ourt ta/es Judicia% notice of the
proLigate 3aste of the countrHs forest resources 3hich has not on%
resu%ted in the irreversib%e %oss of Lora and fauna pecu%iar to the region,
but has produced even more disastrous and %asting economic and socia%
eMects. The de%icate ba%ance of nature having been upset, a vicious cc%e
of Loods and droughts has been triggered and the supp% of food and
energ resources reIuired b the peop%e serious% dep%eted.
Fhi%e there is a desire to harness natura% resources to amass pro>t and to
meet the countrHs immediate >nancia% reIuirements, the more essentia%
need to ensure future generations of Fi%ipinos of their surviva% in a viab%e
environment demands eMective and circumspect action from the
government to chec/ further denudation of 3hatever remains of the forest
%ands. Nothing %ess is e9pected of the government, in vie3 of the c%ear
constitutiona% command to maintain a ba%anced and hea%thfu% eco%og.
Section !$ of *rtic%e II of the !"#' 8onstitution provides0
S,8. !$. The State sha%% protect and promote the right of the
peop%e to a ba%anced and hea%thfu% eco%og in accord 3ith the
rhthm and harmon of nature.
Thus, 3hi%e the administration grapp%es 3ith the comp%e9 and mu%tifarious
prob%ems caused b unbrid%ed e9p%oitation of these resources, the Judiciar
3i%% stand c%ear. * %ong %ine of cases estab%ish the basic ru%e that the courts
3i%% not interfere in matters 3hich are addressed to the sound discretion of
government agencies entrusted 3ith the regu%ation of activities coming
under the specia% technica% /no3%edge and training of such agencies -See
,spinosa v. &a/a%inta%, '" )hi%. !4; 1!";'25 8o%oso v. Aoard of
*ccountanc, "+ )hi%. "4# 1!"7425 )aJo v. *go, !?# )hi%. "?7 1!"$?25 Suare@
v. Rees, E.R. No. 6<!"#+#, Februar +#, !"$4, ' S8R* ;$!5 Eanitano v.
Secretar of *gricu%ture and Natura% Resources, E. R. No. 6<+!!$', &arch
4!, !"$$, !$ S8R* 7;45 Vi%%egas v. *uditor Eenera%, E.R. No. 6<+!47+,
November +", !"$$, !# S8R* #''5 &anue% v. Vi%%ena, E.R. No. 6<+#+!#,
Februar +', !"'!, 4' S8R* ';75 6acuesta v. Herrera, E.R. No. 6<44$;$,
=anuar +#, !"'7, $+ S8R* !!75 6ianga Aa 6ogging 8o., Inc. v. ,nage, E.R.
No. 6<4?$4', =u% !$, !"#', !7+ S8R* #?.. &ore so 3here, as in the present
case, the interests of a private %ogging compan are pitted against that of
the pub%ic at %arge on the pressing pub%ic po%ic issue of forest
conservation. For this 8ourt recogni@es the 3ide %atitude of discretion
possessed b the government in determining the appropriate actions to be
ta/en to preserve and manage natura% resources, and the proper parties
3ho shou%d enJo the privi%ege of uti%i@ing these resources -Director of
Forestr v. &uno@, E.R. No. 6<+;'"$, =une +#, !"$#, +4 S8R* !!#45 6im, Sr.
v. The Secretar of *gricu%ture and Natura% Resources, E.R. No. 6<+$""?,
*ugust 4!, !"'?, 4; S8R* '7!.. Timber %icenses, permits and %icense
agreements are the principa% instruments b 3hich the State regu%ates the
uti%i@ation and disposition of forest resources to the end that pub%ic 3e%fare
is promoted. *nd it can hard% be gainsaid that the mere% evidence a
privi%ege granted b the State to Iua%i>ed entities, and do not vest in the
%atter a permanent or irrevocab%e right to the particu%ar concession area
and the forest products therein. The ma be va%id% amended, modi>ed,
rep%aced or rescinded b the 8hief ,9ecutive 3hen nationa% interests so
reIuire. Thus, the are not deemed contracts 3ithin the purvie3 of the due
process of %a3 c%ause -See Sections 4 1ee2 and +? of )res. Decree No. '?7,
as amended. *%so, Tan v. Director of Forestr, E.R. No. 6<+;7;#, October
+', !"#4, !+7 S8R* 4?+..
In >ne, the %ega% precepts high%ighted in the foregoing discussion more
than su(ce to Justif the 8ourtHs refusa% to interfere in the D,NR
eva%uation of timber %icenses and permits issued under the previous
regime, or to pre<empt the adoption of appropriate corrective measures b
the department.
Neverthe%ess, the 8ourt cannot he%p but e9press its concern regarding
a%%eged irregu%arities in the issuance of timber %icense agreements to a
number of %ogging concessionaires.
The grant of %icenses or permits to e9p%oit the countrHs timber resources, if
done in contravention of the procedure out%ined in the %a3, or as a resu%t of
fraud and undue inLuence e9erted on department o(cia%s, is indicative of
an arbitrar and 3himsica% e9ercise of the StateHs po3er to regu%ate the
use and e9p%oitation of forest resources. The a%%eged practice of besto3ing
:specia% favors: to preferred individua%s, regard%ess of merit, 3ou%d be an
abuse of this po3er. *nd this 8ourt 3i%% not be a part to a Lagrant
moc/er of the avo3ed pub%ic po%ic of conservation enshrined in the !"#'
8onstitution. Therefore, shou%d the appropriate case be brought sho3ing a
c%ear grave abuse of discretion on the part of o(cia%s in the D,NR and
re%ated bureaus 3ith respect to the imp%ementation of this pub%ic po%ic,
the 8ourt 3in not hesitate to step in and 3ie%d its authorit, 3hen invo/ed,
in the e9ercise of Judicia% po3ers under the 8onstitution -Section !, *rtic%e
VIII..
Ho3ever, petitioner having fai%ed to ma/e out a case sho3ing grave abuse
of discretion on the part of pub%ic respondents herein, the 8ourt >nds no
basis to issue a 3rit of certiorari and to grant an of the a(rmative re%iefs
sought.
FH,R,FOR,, the present petition is DIS&ISS,D.
SO ORD,R,D.
'ernan, #.J., (utierre) Jr. and *idin, JJ., concur.
Fe%iciano, =., is on %eave.
Foot)ote.
N *s a resu%t of the creation of the province of Buirino the municipa%it of
&adde%a is no3 deemed part of the Buirino province.