Title Ysmael v.

Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA 673, October 18, 1990

Ponente Courts, J.
Doctrine Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the
sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the
regulation of activities coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of such agencies.
Facts On October 12, 1965, petitioner 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 from October 12, 1965 until June
30, 1990.

On August 18, 1983, 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.

After the cancellation of its timber license agreement, it immediately

sent a letter addressed to then President Ferdinand Marcos which sought
reconsideration of the Bureau's directive, citing in support thereof its
contributions to alleging that it was not given the forest conservation
and opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging
license, but no operations.

Petitioner filed a certiorari only in 1986, three years after their license
were revoked. This was denied.

Contentions Petitioner [Name] Respondent [Name]

The refusal of public respondents
herein to reverse final and
executory administrative orders
constitute grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
Lower Courts
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which could be withdrawn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.
Appellate Court
Issue Whether or not judicial interference is applicable in the case at
bar
SC Ruling Thus, while the administration grapples with the complex and
multifarious problems caused by unbridled exploitation of these
resources, the judiciary will stand clear.

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 the special technical
knowledge and training of such agencies.

More so where, as in the present case, the interests of a private logging

company are pitted against that of the public at large on the pressing
public policy issue of forest conservation. For this Court recognizes the
wide latitude of discretion possessed by the government in determining
the appropriate actions to be taken to preserve and manage natural
resources, and the proper parties who should enjoy the privilege of
utilizing these resources.

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.

In fine, the legal precepts highlighted in the foregoing discussion more

than suffice to justify the Court's refusal to interfere in the DENR
evaluation of timber licenses and permits issued under the previous
regime, or to pre-empt the adoption of appropriate corrective measures
by the department.