Paat vs. CA 266 SCRA 167

In the construction of statutes, it must be read in such a way as to give effect to the purpose projected in the statute. Statutes should be construed in the light of the object to be achieved and the evil or mischief to be suppressed, and they should be given such construction as will advance the object, suppress the mischief, and secure the benefits intended.

Paat vs. CA

 

Facts:

On May 19, 1989, while on its way to Bulacan from San Jose Baggao Cagayan, private respondent’s truck was seized by the DENR personnel because the driver could not produce the required documents for the forest products found concealed in the truck. Petitioner Layugan of CENRO issued an order of confiscation of the truck and gave the owner 15 days to submit an explanation why the truck should not be forfeited. However, private respondents failed to submit an explanation. Thus, DENR Regional Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan sustained CENRO’s action of confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the truck invoking Section 68-A of Presidential Decree 705, as amended by Executive Order 277. Private respondent then filed for reconsideration but was denied. Subsequently, the case was brought by the petitioners to the Secretary of DENR pursuant to private respondent’s letter for reconsideration as an appeal to the secretary.

However pending resolution, a suit for replevin a procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored to their owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of the parties concerned  (Civil Case 4031), was filed by Private Respondent against petitioners with the RTC Branch 2 of Cagayan. Private respondents imputed the patent illegality of seizure and forfeiture of the truck because the administrative officers of the DENR allegedly have no power to perform these acts under the law. They insisted that only the court is authorized to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products as can be gleaned from the second paragraph of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277. The pertinent provision reads as follows:

SECTION 68. xxx

xxx The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipments, implements and tools illegally [sic] used in the area where the timber or forest products are found.

Private respondent further contended that the seizure is illegal, as the truck was not used in the commission of the crime (of qualified theft under Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable under Section 68), as allegedly admitted by the Regional Executive Director, releasing the latter from criminal liability.

Petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan filed a motion to dismiss with the trial court contending, inter alia, that private respondents had no cause of action for their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The trial court thereafter issued a writ ordering the return of the truck to private respondent.

Their motion for reconsideration having been likewise denied, a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioners with the respondent Court of Appeals which sustained the trial courts’ order ruling that the question involved is purely a legal question. Hence, the petition with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, seeking to reverse the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals.

Issues:

Whether without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, may an action for replevin prosper to recover a movable property which is the subject matter of an administrative forfeiture proceeding in DENR pursuant to Section 68-A of P. D. 705, as amended, entitled The Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines?

Whether the authority to confiscate or to forfeit conveyances only belongs to the courts, in light of Sec. 68 of P.D. 705?

Whether the Secretary of DENR and his representatives are empowered to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products in favor of the government?

HELD:

No. The court could not legally entertain an action for replevin. It is important to point out that the enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the DENR. By the very nature of its function, it should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The assumption by the trial court, therefore, of the replevin suit filed by private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of the administrative agency’s prerogative. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. The court held that “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.

No. The authority to confiscate or to forfeit does not only belong to the court. The provision of Sec. 68 of P.D. 705 should be read together with Sec. 68a to give way to the clear intention of the law which allows the DENR authority in cases of violation of the code. In the construction of statutes, it must be read in such a way as to give effect to the purpose projected in the statute. Statutes should be construed in the light of the object to be achieved and the evil or mischief to be suppressed, and they should be given such construction as will advance the object, suppress the mischief, and secure the benefits intended.

Yes. The Secretary of DENR and his representatives are empowered to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products in favor of the government. It should be noted that the truck was seized by the petitioners because it was transporting forest products without the required permit of the DENR in manifest contravention of Section 68 of P.D. 705 as amended by E.O 277. Section 68-A of P.D. 705, as amended, unquestionably warrants the confiscation as well as the disposition by the Secretary of DENR or his duly authorized representatives of the conveyances used in violating the provision of forestry laws. The court ruled that the continued possession or detention of the truck by the petitioners for administrative forfeiture proceeding is legally permissible

 

 

Decision

The Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside and reversed the decision of Court of Appeals and directed the Secretary of DENR to resolve the controversy.