G.R. No. 111107 January 10, 1997
LOEONARDO A. PAAT, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Regional Executive Director (RED), Region 2 and JOVITO LAYUGAN, JR., in his capacity as Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO), both of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RICARDO A. BACULI in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court at Tuguegarao, Cagayan, and SPOUSES BIENVENIDO and VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, respondents.

FACTS

The truck of respondents Spouses De Guzman was seized by DENR personnel in May 1989 for transporting forest products without the required documents. Petitioner CENRO Jovito Layugan issued an order of confiscation. The Regional Executive Director subsequently ordered the truck’s forfeiture under Section 68-A of P.D. 705 (The Revised Forestry Code), as amended. The spouses filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then stated in a letter that such denial should be considered an appeal to the DENR Secretary.
While this administrative appeal was pending resolution, the spouses filed a suit for replevin (Civil Case No. 4031) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to recover the truck. The RTC issued a writ of replevin. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but the RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC, ruling the question involved was purely legal.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the action for replevin can prosper without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, given the pending administrative forfeiture proceeding. (2) Whether the DENR Secretary and his representatives are empowered to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies and was violated. The filing of the replevin suit was premature because the spouses had a pending administrative appeal before the DENR Secretary. The law requires that this administrative process be completed first before seeking judicial intervention. The Court clarified that the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine do not apply. The question of whether the DENR has confiscation powers is not a purely legal question separable from the factual determination of whether a forestry law violation occurred, which is precisely the subject of the ongoing administrative proceeding. No patent illegality or due process violation was established to justify bypassing the administrative appeal.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed that the DENR Secretary and his duly authorized representatives possess the authority to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products. This power is explicitly granted under Section 68-A of P.D. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277. The law states that such conveyances shall be forfeited in favor of the government. Therefore, the administrative seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the petitioners were within their jurisdiction. The Court directed the DENR Secretary to resolve the pending administrative appeal with dispatch.