LT. GEN. ALFONSO P. DAGUDAG (Ret.) vs. JUDGE MAXIMO G.W.

PADERANGA
PER CURIAM, J.: A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017             June 19, 2008

Facts: Sometime in 2005, forest products were confiscated by the representative of 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 petition are
filed motion to quash the rate of replevin but was denied by respondent. The DENR council was also lambasted in the courtroom
by respondent judge.

Issue: Wether replevine is a proper remedy where the confiscated items were undocumented forest products under the custody of
the DENR.

Held: 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 227 is under the jurisdiction of the DENR. That respondent should have dismissed the
replevin suit outright for three reasons:
(1)courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies under the doctrine of administrative exhaustion

(2) 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, and administrative
may have already been commenced

(3) that the forest products are already in custody of loss and thus cannot be the subject of replevin.