Felipe Ismael Jr. & Co., Inc.

vs Secretary of Natural Resources

G.R. No. 79538. October 18, 1990

Facts
On October 12, 1965, petitioner entered into a timber license agreement with the
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources in Maddela, Nueva Vizcaya from
October 12, 1965 until June 30, 1990. On August 18, 1983, Edmundo Cortes, Director of
the Bureau of Forest Development, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging
operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and cancelling the logging
concession of petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires. After the cancellation of
petitioner’s timber license, it sent a letter addressed to then President Ferdinand Marcos
which sought reconsideration of the Bureau's directive but the Minister of Natural
Resources denied petitioner’s request. Barely a year later, the former area covered by
petitioner’s timber license agreement was awarded to Twin Peaks Development and
Realty Corporation and Filipinas Loggers, Inc. Petitioner’s Motion for reconsideration
having been denied, it appealed the orders with the Office of the President. However, the
same was denied for lack of merit. Hence, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, with
prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.

Issues
1. Whether or not the filing of petition for certiorari by the petitioner was proper
2. Whether or not the assailed orders issued by the Minister of Natural Resources
amounts to grave abuse of discretion

Ruling
1. No. It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of
administrative agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a
final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. Moreover,
petitioner is precluded from availing of the benefits of a writ of certiorari in the
present case because he failed to file his petition within a reasonable period. For
although no specific time frame is fixed for the institution of a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the same must
nevertheless be done within a "reasonable time". The yardstick to measure the
timeliness of a petition for certiorari is the "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" In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at
least three years before it finally filed a petition for certiorari with the Court attacking
the validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and 1984. Such delay
constitutes unreasonable and inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches.

2. No. The assailed orders was based on public policy considerations. The
administrative reassessment of the timber license agreements is apparently in
response to the renewed and growing global concern over the despoliation of
forest lands and the utter disregard of their crucial role in sustaining a balanced
ecological system pursuant to the constitutional mandate under Section 16, Article
II of the 1987 Constitution. In the present case, the interests of a private logging
company are pitted against that of the public at large on the pressing public policy
issue of forest conservation. It us upon the discretion of the government to
determine the appropriate actions to be taken to preserve and manage natural
resources covered by such is the regulation of timber license agreements.
Moreover, such license is merely a privilege granted by the State to qualified
entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right. Hence, it
may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive
when national interests so require, as in the case at bar.