(Sagip Kalikasan) Dagudag vs Paderanga

Facts:
Sometime in 2005, forest products were confiscated by the representatives of PNPRMG, DENR and the
Philippine Coast Guard for non-compliance of pertinent documents, and since no one claimed ownership
of the said items for a reasonable time, it was confiscated in favor of the government. Respondent-judge,
in a case for issuance of writ of replevin, instituted by plaintiff Edma, issued and decided in favor of the
plaintiff, for the return of the undocumented forest products. DENR, CENRO and herein petitioner filed a
motion to quash the writ of replevin but was thereafter denied by herein respondent. The DENR counsel
was also lambasted in the courtroom by herein respondent.

Issue(s):
1) Whether or not relevin is a proper remedy where the confiscated items were undocumented forest
products under the custody of the DENR.
2) Whether or not the acts of herein respondent constitutes gross ignorance of the law and unbecoming
of a judge.

Ruling:
1) No, The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws. That since the case is for
violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by EO 277 is under the jurisdiction of DENR. That respondent
should have dismissed the replevin suit outright for three reasons, to wit:

That courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies, under the doctrine
of administrative exhaustion;

That also, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction courts cannot take cognizance of the cases pending
before administrative agencies of special competence. That since the undocumented forest products are
in the custody of the DENR, an administrative proceeding may have already been commenced; and,
That the forest products are already in custody of law and thus
cannot be the subject of replevin.

2) Yes, respondent, in taking cognizance of the replevin suit and thereafter issuing the said writ constitute
gross ignorance of the law. Respondent also is liable for using inappropriate language in court, and
repeated interruption of the lawyers and refusal to consider the motion to quash are undignified and very
unbecoming of a judge. Considering also that this is his third offense.