G.R. No. L-23183 October 29, 1965
BUENO INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, MACARIO C. CONDE, RAFAEL C. AQUINO and R. C. AQUINO TIMBER and PLYWOOD CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bueno Industrial & Development Corporation (BIDCOR) and respondent R. C. Aquino Timber and Plywood Co., Inc. (TIMPLY) are timber licensees with adjoining concessions in Agusan, which were found by the Bureau of Forestry to overlap in certain portions. TIMPLY was granted a Right-of-Way Permit (No. 237) to construct a logging road through BIDCOR’s licensed area, with conditions including that merchantable trees cut within the right-of-way belong to BIDCOR and that the Director of Forestry’s decision on the location is final. Disputes arose regarding the use of the road and the cutting of logs. TIMPLY filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Agusan (Sp. Civil Case No. 168) against BIDCOR, alleging that BIDCOR stopped its logging trucks, and sought a preliminary injunction. The respondent Judge granted the injunction on February 10, 1964, restraining BIDCOR from interfering with TIMPLY’s logging operations in its licensed area. BIDCOR filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court. Prior to the lower court’s injunction, forestry officials (Assistant District Forester and Forestry Supervisor) had written to TIMPLY, advising and then ordering it to stop its logging and hauling operations within BIDCOR’s area, as it was operating illegally within the overlapping portion and violating the right-of-way permit by hauling logs cut within it. The Acting Director of Forestry formally confirmed this stop order on March 6, 1964. The Supreme Court initially issued a preliminary injunction on September 1, 1964, and an alias writ on December 7, 1964, restraining TIMPLY from conducting logging operations in and hauling logs from BIDCOR’s licensed area. Despite this, TIMPLY filed a new complaint to enjoin the Philippine Constabulary and forestry officials from enforcing the Supreme Court’s writ, and the trial court granted the injunction.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction on February 10, 1964.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Court committed a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court found the record convincing that the lower court gravely abused its discretion. This was based on the fact that prior to the issuance of the injunction on February 10, 1964, forestry officials had already determined and advised TIMPLY that its logging operations were within BIDCOR’s licensed area and in violation of its right-of-way permit, and had issued orders for TIMPLY to stop such operations. The Supreme Court granted the writ prayed for, set aside the lower court’s order and writ of February 10, 1964, and made permanent its own preliminary injunction of September 1, 1964 and the alias writ of December 7, 1964. It ruled that, given the overlapping areas as found by the Bureau of Forestry, no logging operations should be conducted by either licensee in the overlap, and since TIMPLY was the party insisting on such operations, the injunction against it was proper. The Court also instructed the Bureau of Forestry and the Philippine Constabulary to take steps to ensure compliance.