Lianga Bay Logging, Co., Inc. vs. J. Manuel Lopez Enage and Ago Timber Corp.

G.R. No. L-30637

July 16, 1987

FACTS:

Lianga Bay Logging Co. and Ago Timber Corp., are both forest concessionaries whose
licensed areas are adjacent to each other. Since the concessions of petitioner and
respondent are adjacent to each other, they have a common boundary-the Agusan-
Surigao Provincial boundary-whereby the eastern boundary of respondent Ago's
concession is petitioner Lianga's western boundary. Because of reports of
encroachment by both parties on each other's concession areas, the Director of
Forestry ordered a survey to establish on the ground the common boundary of their
respective concession areas. The Director of Forestry ruled in favor of Lianga Bay
Logging Co. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, on appeal, reversed
the Director of Forestry. Lianga Bay Co., appealed to the Office of the President who
affirmed the ruling of the SENR. However, upon Motion for Reconsideration, the OP
issued another decision reversing its first ruling and affirming the Director of Forestry.
Ago Timber then commenced an action before the CFI of Agusan Branch II against
Lianga Bay Logging Co, the Director of Forestry, the SENR, and AES Leido and Duavit.
Lianga Bay moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action
which the lower court denied. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

WON the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the
case notwithstanding the rulings already issued by the administrative agencies
concerned.

RULING:

YES. It is abundantly clear that respondent court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of Civil Case No. 1253 of the Court of First Instance of Agusan nor has it
jurisdiction to decide on the common boundary of the licensed areas of petitioner Lianga
and respondent Ago, as determined by respondents public officials against whom no
case of grave abuse of discretion has been made. Absent a cause of action and
jurisdiction, respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and excess, if not
lack, of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the case under review and in issuing the writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the final decision dated August 9,
1968 and the order affirming the same dated October 2, 1968 of the Office of the
President.
A doctrine long recognized is that where the law confines in an administrative office the
power to determine particular questions or matters, upon the facts to be presented, the
jurisdiction of such office shall prevail over the courts.

In giving due course to the complaint, the respondent court would necessarily have to
assess and evaluate anew all the evidence presented in the administrative proceedings,
which is beyond its competence and jurisdiction.

Hence, such a posture cannot be entertained, for it is a well-settled doctrine that the
courts of justice will generally not interfere with purely administrative matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies and their expertise unless
there is a clear showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion
or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action
may amount to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.