Paat vs CA

GR No. 111107, 10 January 1997

266 SCRA 167
FACTS
The truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman was seized by the DENR
personnel while on its way to Bulacan because the driver could not produce
the required documents for the forest product found concealed in the truck.
Petitioner Jovito Layugan, CENRO ordered the confiscation of the truck and
required the owner to explain. Private respondents failed to submit required
explanation. The DENR Regional Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan
sustained Layugans action for confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the
truck. Private respondents brought the case to the DENR Secretary. Pending
appeal, private respondents filed a replevin case before the RTC against
petitioner Layugan and Baggayan. RTC granted the same. Petitioners moved
to dismiss the case contending, inter alia, that private respondents had no
cause of action for their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial
court denied their motion. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioners aver that the trial court could not legally entertain the suit for
replevin because the truck was under administrative seizure proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether or not an action for replevin prosper, in recovering a movable
property which is the subject matter of an administrative forfeiture
proceeding, without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
HELD
The Court held in the negative. The Court has consistently held that before a
party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition
that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processed
afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can
still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then
such remedy should be exhausted first before courts judicial power can be
sought. The premature invocation of court intervention is fatal to ones
cause of action.
*Replevin - a procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored
to their owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of
the parties concerned.