YSMAEL

vs.
DEPUTY EXEC. SECRETARY, et. al
G.R. No. 79538 October 18, 1990
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
Start: 6/25/14 1:14:39 PM
Finish: 6/25/14 3:28:37 PM
Nature of the Case
A direct petition for certiorari with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction (TRO) and a subsequent supplement to such petition.

Facts
Petitioner sent two letters dated 17 March 1986 and 2 April 1986 to the Office of the President and the Ministry of National Resources (MNR now DENR),
respectively, seeking: (1) reinstatement of its timber license agreement (TLA) TLA No. 87 [entered on 12 October 1965]; (2) revocation of TLA No. 356 issued
to private respondent Twin Devt and Realty Corporation (Twin); and (3) the issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the
concession area. The petitioners TLA allowed it to cut, collect and remove timber subject to exceptions on prohibited species in the Municipality of Madela,
Nueva Vizcaya. In a memorandum dated 18 August 1983, respondent Bureau of Forest Devt (Bureau) banned all logging activities in Nueva Vizacaya [and
Quirino provinces] cancelling the logging concession of petitioner, including nine others, pursuant to . A week after, petitioner received a telegram from the
Bureau requesting the former to stop all logging activities subject to a 30 day compliance report. Immediately thereafter, petitioner claims to have sent a
letter to Pres. Marcos claiming he was not given conservation and opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation did not elicit response. Barely a year after
the cancellation of TLA No. 87, approximately ! of the area covered therein has been awarded to Twin in TLA No. 356, while the other half has been awarded
to Filipinas Loggers without license. Petitioner further alleged that Twin and Filipinas Loggers were owned and controlled by cronies of Pres. Marcos. MNR
denied petitioners request in an order dated 22 July 1986 stating that a TLA is not a contract but a privilege that can be withdrawn whenever public interest
or welfare so demands and that petitioner was not discriminated against because there were nine other concessionaires whose licenses have been revoked,
with emphasis that the cancellation was in view of a total ban on logging activities within the subject area. Petioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a
supplemental motion, but both were denied in orders dated 15 September 1986 and 26 November 1986 [the logging ban in Quirino province was lifted
pursuant to AO No. 54, s. 1986], respectively. Appeal and motion for reconsideration to the Office of the President was denied for lack of merit in a resolution,
the same being prematurely filed while the issue has not been terminated by MNR. Hence this petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO on 27 August 1987,
supplemented by petition dated 13 October 1987. For brevity, let us call the administrative orders dated 22 July, 15 September and 26 November 1986 as the
Three Administrative Actions.

Issue(s)
(1). Does the petition merit decision in favor of petitioner?

Held
(1). No, for three reasons: (1) the Three Administrative Actions adhere to the doctrine of res judicata; (2) the rule on laches applies in the petition; and
(3) The Three Administrative Orders prevent judicial interference.

The administrative orders adhere to the doctrine of res judicata
The decision of administrative agencies adheres to the doctrine of res judicata, which has the effect as if it was rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction, as indeed apparent in the Three Administrative Actions. The fact that petitioner only acted on its concern in 1986 [notwithstanding the
alleged letter sent to Pres. Marcos in 1983 which is of no merit], only implies that petitioner did not exhaust all remedies it could have done under
Section 8 of Pres. Dec. No. 705 as amended, for as early as 1984 petitioner did not then and there attack the validity of administrative actions in a
court of competent jurisdiction amidst the apparent fraudulent scheme in selective awarding of TLAs to concessionaires Twin and Filipinas Loggers
to its prejudice.

The rule on laches applies in this petition
This petition for certiorari is grounded on the principle that administrative agencies committed grave abuse of discretion. Yet, petitioner sought for
the nullification of the Three Administrative Orders, failing to assail the validity of the Three Administrative Actions within a reasonable period of time
- "reasonableness of the length of time that had expired from the commission of the acts complained of up to the institution of the proceeding to
annul the same". Failure to do so makes the petition susceptible to the fatal consequences of laches
1
, and indeed, the petitioner, in waiting three
years before it finally instituted this petition for certiorari when he was not deprived of any opportunity to seek relief from the courts which were
normally operating during that time, makes the delay unreasonable and inexcusable. Thus, this petition for certiorari will not lie to reverse the Three
Administrative Actions by reason of petitioners unreasable and inexcusable relay, which is tantamount to laches.

The Three Administrative Actions prevent judicial interference
The orders disclose public policy considerations beyond the control of the courts. One of the orders disclose that the incumbent administration is in
pursuit of department evaluation as regards all TLAs. In fact, the legislative department is also in the process of developing environmental policies
that assess the present utilization of timber lands and its future conservation and rehabilitation. Undeniable are the present conditions that upset
the delicate balance of nature. Thus, the State is required xxx protect and promote the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The court is beyond power and authority to interfere with the sound discretion of administrative
agencies lodged with the responsibility to implement this Constitutional mandate. In the case at bar, the TLAs are within the power of the State to
regulate (police power), leaving it susceptible to amendment, modification, replacement or rescission by the Chief Executive when national interest
so requires. Thus, TLAs are not contracts within the premise of the non-impairment clause only available to contracts. The court could therefore not
interfere with such regulatory power of the Chief Executive.

To some extent, the SC could only express its concern on the grant of permits on the basis of the alleged irregularities. If true, then this is a
limitation on the power of the state to regulate which will not make the court hesitate on taking cognizance therefrom. However, since petitioner did
not show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public-respondents, the same be dealt with in this petition.

1
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier,
or to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No.
L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29; Seno v. Mangubat, G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA 113)