Irish O.

Alonzo JD-2
Case Digest in Natural Resources and Environmental Law

Hello Everyone! Hello Atty. Good evening. I hope you are all doing well. Today I’m
going to discuss about a particular case which is under a known topic called
Revised Forestry Code PD 705. About Timber License Agreement.

Let me share with you first a very nice quote from Chris Maser, he said, “What we
are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to
ourselves and to one another”

This quote will lead us into knowing about this case which we will discuss. Let’s find
out how our government and other related agencies do their part to attain the main
goal of giving the Filipino people their right to a healthful and balanced ecology with
proper management and utilization of the lands of the public domain, and more so
on the protection, rehabilitation and development of the forest lands.

The title of this case is:

G.R. No. 79538 October 18, 1990

FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT and TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND
REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.

Tañada, Vivo & Tan for petitioner.

Antonio E. Escober and Jurado Law Office for respondent Twin Peaks Development Corporation.

I. Facts
 On April 2, 1986, the petitioner, Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co. Inc. sent a letter to
Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural Resources [MNR],(The MNR
was later renamed the Department of Environment and Natural Resources)
seeking the reinstatement of its timber license agreement which was cancelled in
August 1983 during the Marcos administration.

 (So about more than 20 years ago before the petitioner sent the MNR the letter)
October 12, 1965, the petitioner, Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co. Inc entered into a
timber license agreement designated as TLA No. 87 with the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, represented by then Secretary Jose
Feliciano, wherein it was issued an exclusive license to cut, collect and remove
 timber except prohibited species within a specified portion of public forest land
with an area of 54,920 hectares located in the municipality of Maddela, province
of Nueva Vizcaya.

 So yun, on August 18, 1983, 18 years after this agreement was entered into, the
Director of the Bureau of Forest Development [hereinafter referred to as
"Bureau"], Director Edmundo Cortes, 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, pursuant
to presidential instructions and a memorandum order of the Minister of Natural
Resources Teodoro Pena. (Such Information was received by the petitioner thru
telegram a week after it was issued; and such memo is in pursuant to the
instruction of the president during that time).

 Barely one year after, approximately one-half or 26,000 hectares of the area
formerly covered by TLA No.87 was re-awarded to Twin Peaks Development and
Reality Corporation and Filipinas Loggers, Inc. which the petitioner also seeks
the cancellation of these TLAs alleging discrimination.

 Acting on petitioner's letter, the MNR through then Minister Ernesto Maceda
issued an order dated July 22, 1986 denying petitioner's request. Moreover,
emphasis was made of the total ban of logging operations in the provinces of
Nueva Ecicaja, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao.

 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…”

 In 1986, ( 3 years after all logging operations were stopped) the logging ban in
the province of Quirino was lifted, Petitioner subsequently appealed from the
orders of the MNR to the Office of the President. In a resolution dated July 6,
1987, the Office of the President, acting through then Deputy Executive
Secretary Catalino Macaraig, denied petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. The
Office of the President ruled that the appeal of petitioner was prematurely filed.

So again the petitioner is 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 Realty Corporation wherein the MNR
denied the petitioner’s request.
II. Issue
(The issue of this case is this:)
  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.

(This was the issue because the petitioner, despite its allege, that they have been
supporting and contributing to the forest conservation and also they were not given any
opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging; and the petitioner’s other
concern is that the TLA No. 87 was re-awarded to other logging companies which the
petitioner is stating as an action of discrimination. Furthermore, it was included in the
case that the petitioner timber license was re-awarded to the entities that were
controlled or owned by relatives or cronies (close friend or companion) of deposed
President Ferdinand Marcos)

But anyways, the answer to the question, “ is there grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the MNR in denying the reinstatement of Ysmael, the petitioner’s logging
concession?

III. Held

(The answer is:)

No. Firstly, the refusal of public respondents (Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources) herein to reverse final and executory administrative orders
does not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
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. (This means that final judgment is no longer subject
to appeal; in other words the matter cannot be raised again in all courts)

It is believed and followed that The Ministry of Natural Resources, through the Bureau of
Forest Development, has jurisdiction and authority over all forest lands. On the basis of its
authority

The rule of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent
authority acting within their exclusive jurisdiction.

The reinstatement has been denied in view of the total ban of all logging operations in the provinces of
Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao which was imposed for reasons of conservation and
national security.

The Ministry imposed the ban because it realizes the great responsibility it bear [sic] in respect to forest
t considers itself the trustee thereof. This being the case, it has to ensure the availability of forest
resources not only for the present, but also for the future generations of Filipinos.
On the other hand, the activities of the insurgents in these parts of the country are well documented.
Their financial demands on logging concessionaires are well known. The government, therefore, is well
within its right to deprive its enemy of sources of funds in order to preserve itself, its established
institutions and the liberty and democratic way of life of its people.

Regarding [petitioner's] request that the award of a 26,000 hectare portion of TLA No. 87 to Twin Peaks
Realty Development Corporation under TLA No. 356 be declared null and void, suffice it to say that the
Ministry is now in the process of reviewing all contracts, permits or other form of privileges for the
exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of natural resources entered into, granted,
issued or acquired before the issuance of Proclamation No. 3, otherwise known as the Freedom
Constitution for the purpose of amending, modifying or revoking them when the national interest so
requires.

Secondly, 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".

Finally, the 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.

 However, petitioner having failed to make out a case showing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of public respondents herein, the Court finds no basis to
issue a writ of certiorari and to grant any of the affirmative reliefs sought.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED.
The Principle in this case is that, Timber License is not a right, it is not a contract but a mere privilege
which may be modified, amended, or rescinded when required by the national interest. Because again
the timber license is not a right but a privilege.