G.R. No.

79538
Felipe Ysmael, etc vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, etc
October 18, 1990
FACTS:
In 1986, at the start of President Corazon Aquino's administration, petitioner sent letters to the
Office of the President and to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) seeking the reinstatement of
its timber license agreement (TLA No. 87), which was cancelled in August 1983 along with nine other
concessions, during the Marcos administration. It alleged that after the its TLA was cancelled without
being given the opportunity to be heard, its logging area was re-awarded to other logging
concessionaires without a formal award or license, as these entities were controlled or owned by
relatives or cronies of deposed President Marcos.
The Ministry ruled that a timber license was not a contract within the due process clause of the
Constitution, but only a privilege which could be withdrawn whenever public interest or welfare so
demands, and that petitioner was not discriminated against in view of the fact that it was among ten
concessionaires whose licenses were revoked in 1983. It also emphasized the fact that there was
currently a total log ban being imposed on the subject areas.
After the logging ban was lifted, petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, but the petition
was denied on the ground that the appeal was prematurely filed, the matter not having been
terminated in the MNR. Hence, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in refusing to overturn administrative orders issued by their predecessors.
RULING:
The refusal of public respondents to reverse final and executory administrative orders does not
constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 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. These decisions and orders are as conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties as
though the same had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction. The rule of res judicata thus
forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting within their
exclusive jurisdiction.
Petitioner did not avail of its remedies under the law for attacking the validity of these administrative
actions until after 1986. By the time petitioner sent its letter to the newly appointed Minister of the
MNR requesting for reconsideration, these were already settled matters as far as petitioner was
concerned.
More importantly, the assailed orders of the MNR disclose public policy consideration, which
effectively forestall judicial interference. Public respondents, upon whose shoulders rests the task of
implementing the policy to develop and conserve the country's natural resources, have indicated an
ongoing department evaluation of all timber license agreements entered into, and permits or
licenses issued, under the previous dispensation. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the
courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government
agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under their special technical knowledge
and training.
Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is
promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to
qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular
concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed
contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause.
The Court expresses its concern regarding alleged irregularities in the issuance of timber license
agreements to a number of logging concessionaires. Should the appropriate case be brought showing
a clear grave abuse of discretion on the part of concerned officials with respect to the
implementation of this public policy, the Court will not hesitate to step in. However, in this case, the
Court finds no basis to issue a writ of certiorari and to grant any of the affirmative reliefs sought.
Petition is dismissed.