YSMAEL VS.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY (G.R. NO. 79538
OCTOBER 18, 1990)

LAW ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DENNIS T. VELASQUEZ
JD 101
 ISSUE
• WHETHER OR NOT, PUBLIC RESPONDENTS HEREIN ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
REFUSING TO OVERTURN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY THEIR
PREDECESSORS IN THE PAST REGIME.
 RULES OR REGULATIONS
• DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA – THE PRINCIPLE STATES THAT A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS IN A
PREVIOUS CASE RENDERED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION WOULD BIND A SUBSEQUENT
CASE IF, BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND ACTIONS, THERE EXISTS AN IDENTITY OF PARTIES, OF
SUBJECT MATTER, AND OF CAUSES OF ACTION.
• SECTION 8 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 705, S. 1975, AS AMENDED (REVISING PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 389, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE FORESTRY REFORM CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES) - ALL
ACTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE DIRECTOR ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW, MOTU PROPIO OR UPON
APPEAL OF ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED THEREBY, BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WHOSE DECISION SHALL
BE FINAL AND EXECUTORY AFTER THE LAPSE OF THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM RECEIPT BY THE AGGRIEVED
PARTY OF SAID DECISION, UNLESS APPEALED TO THE PRESIDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 19, SERIES OF 1966, PRESCRIBING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR APPEALS
TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT FOR FINALITY OF DECISIONS THEREOF. THE DECISION OF THE
DEPARTMENT HEAD MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY THE COURTS EXCEPT THROUGH A SPECIAL CIVIL
ACTION FOR CERTIORARI OR PROHIBITION.
 RULES OR REGULATIONS
• RULE 65 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT (CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS) – A
PERSON AGGRIEVED BY AN ACTION OF AN APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY MAY FILE A VERIFIED PETITION
IN THE PROPER COURT, ALLEGING THE FACTS WITH CERTAINTY AND PRAYING THAT JUDGMENT BE
RENDERED ANNULLING OR MODIFYING THE PROCEEDINGS OF SUCH TRIBUNAL, BOARD OR OFFICER,
AND GRANTING SUCH INCIDENTAL RELIEFS AS LAW AND JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE. ALTHOUGH NO
SPECIFIC TIME FRAME IS FIXED FOR THE INSTITUTION OF A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI, IT
MUST BE DONE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.
• LACHES – BEING BASED ON EQUITY, AND AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT AS A 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.
• SECTION 16 OF ARTICLE II OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION – THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY IN ACCORD WITH THE
RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE.
 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES
FACTS:
• FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., PETITIONER ENTERED INTO A TIMBER LICENSE AGREEMENT
DESIGNATED AS TLA NO. 87 WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES ON OCTOBER 12, 1965.
• THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT ISSUED A MEMORANDUM ON
AUGUST 18, 1983, STOPPING ALL LOGGING OPERATIONS IN NUEVA VIZCAYA AND QUIRINO
PROVINCES, AND CANCELLING THE CONCESSIONS OF THE PETITIONER AND NINE OTHER
FOREST CONCESSIONAIRES.
• BARELY A YEAR THEREAFTER, ABOUT HALF OR 26,000 HECTARES OF THE AREA COVERED BY TLA
NO. 87 WAS RE-AWARDED TO HEREIN PRIVATE RESPONDENT, TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT
AND REALTY CORPORATION, UNDER TLA NO. 356, AND THE OTHER HALF, TO FILIPINAS
LOGGERS, INC.
 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES
• PETITIONER SENT LETTERS TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND TO MINISTER ERNESTO
MACEDA OF THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DATED MARCH 17, 1986 AND APRIL 2,
1986, RESPECTIVELY, SEEKING:
1.) THE REINSTATEMENT OF ITS TIMBER LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS
CANCELLED IN AUGUST 1983 DURING THE MARCOS ADMINISTRATION;
2.) THE REVOCATION OF TLA NO. 356 WHICH WAS ISSUED TO TWIN PEAKS
DEVELOPMENT AND REALITY CORPORATION; AND
3.) THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER ALLOWING PETITIONER TO TAKE POSSESSION OF
ALL LOGS FOUND IN THE CONCESSION AREA.
 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES
• PETITIONER’S MOTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONS WERE DENIED BY THE
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
• PETITIONER THEN APPEALED THE SAME TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. IN A RESOLUTION DATED
JULY 6, 1987, THROUGH THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, DENIED THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF MERIT,
THERE BEING PREMATURELY FILED, THE MATTER NOT HAVING BEEN TERMINATED IN THE MNR. AGAIN, HIS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS DENIED ON AUGUST 14, 1987.
• PETITIONER FILED DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON AUGUST 27, 1987
AND AMENDING THE SAME ON OCTOBER 13, 1987 WITH A PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A
RESTRAINING ORDER OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. NAMED RESPONDENTS ARE THE DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (CATALINO MACARAIG), SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
(ERNESTO MACEDA), THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT (EDMUNDO CORTES) AND
TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CORPORATION.
 ARGUMENTS
YSMAEL DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
• THE RE-AWARDED TIMBER LICENSE • TIMBER LICENSE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT
AGREEMENTS TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND CONTRACTS WITHIN THE DUE PROCESS
FILIPINAS LOGGERS, INC. WERE DONE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT ONLY
WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A FORMAL AWARD OR PRIVILEGES WHICH COULD BE WITHDRAWN
LICENSE. SAID ENTITIES WERE CONTROLLED WHENEVER PUBLIC INTEREST OR WELFARE
OR OWNED BY CRONIES OF DEPOSED SO DEMANDS AND THE PETITIONER WAS
PRESIDENT FERDINAND MARCOS. NOT DISCRIMINATED IN VIEW OF THE FACT
THAT IT WAS AMONG THE TEN (10)
CONCESSIONAIRES REVOKED IN 1983.
 ARGUMENTS
YSMAEL
• THE TLA AWARDED TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT
SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID FOR
BEING VIOLATIVE OF FORESTRY LAWS, RULES
AND REGULATIONS.
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
• THE MINISTRY IS IN THE PROCESS OF
REVIEWING ALL CONTRACTS, PERMITS OR
OTHER FORMS OF PRIVILEGES FOR
EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, EXPLOITATION,
OR UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ENTERED INTO, GRANTED, ISSUED OR
ACQUIRED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF
PROCLAMATION NO. 3 OR OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE FREEDOM CONSTITUTION,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING, MODIFYING
OR REVOKING THEM WHEN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST SO REQUIRES.
 ARGUMENTS
YSMAEL
• THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
TAKE POSSESSION OF ALL THE LOGS FOUND
IN THE CONCESSION AREA.
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
• THE MINISTRY, THROUGH THE BUREAU OF
FOREST DEVELOPMENT, HAS JURISDICTION
AND AUTHORITY OVER ALL FOREST LANDS,
AND ITS ORDER BANNING ALL LOGGING
ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ALL
LOGS FOUND IN THE SUBJECT CONCESSION
AREA. IN FACT, THERE WAS A TOTAL BAN ON
LOGGING OPERATIONS IN THE PROVINCES
OF NUEVA ECIJA, NUEVA VIZCAYA, QUIRINO
AND IFUGAO IMPOSED ON APRIL 2, 1986.
 CONCLUSION
• BASED ON RES JUDICATA, DECISIONS AND ORDERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES HAVE UPON THEIR
FINALITY, THE FORCE AND BINDING EFFECT OF A FINAL JUDGMENT AND ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
THIS DOCTRINE. IT THUS FORBIDS THE REOPENING OF A MATTER, IN THIS CASE, THE CANCELLATION OF
TIMBERLAND LICENSE AGREEMENTS, ONCE DETERMINED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY, HEREIN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES, ACTING WITHIN THEIR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.
• THE PETITIONER DID NOT AVAIL OF ITS REMEDIES UNDER SECTION 8 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 705. IT
ONLY ASSAILED THE VALIDITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ONLY AFTER 1986.
• PETITIONER, NOT HAVING AVAILED OF THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME BUT WAITED FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS BEFORE DOING SO WHEN HE COULD HAVE
ASSAILED THE BUREAU’S ACTIONS IN 1983 AND 1984, THE PETITION THEREFORE, IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO
ADVERSE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF LACHES, WHICH IS BASICALLY BASED ON EQUITY.
 CONCLUSION
• THE MORE SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IS THE PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATION. HEREIN REST
UPON THE RESPONDENTS THE TASK TO DEVELOP AND CONSERVE THE COUNTRY’S
NATURAL RESOURCES. THE MORE ESSENTIAL NEED IS TO ENSURE FUTURE GENERATIONS
OF FILIPINOS OF THEIR SURVIVAL IN A VIABLE ENVIRONMENT, IN VIEW OF THE SELF-
EXECUTING PROVISION TO MAINTAIN A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY.
• THE PETITION IS DISMISSED SINCE THERE WAS NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENTS
NAMED HEREIN.