GR 80849; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 80849 & G.R. No. 81114, December 2, 1998
Sta. Ines Melale Forest Products Corporation vs. Hon. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., et al. / Sta. Ines Melale Forest Products Corporation vs. Hon. Vicente A. Hidalgo, et al.
FACTS
These consolidated petitions stem from a boundary dispute between petitioner Sta. Ines and private respondents Agusan Wood Industries, Inc. (Agwood) and Kalilid Wood Industries, Inc. (Kalilid). The conflict centered on a gap between the established common boundary of Sta. Ines and Agwood from a 1970 survey and the endpoint of Sta. Ines’s northern boundary from a separate 1978 survey for Kalilid. In 1979, the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) agreeing to a final re-survey (the Bayla survey) based on the technical description of Sta. Ines’s Timber License Agreement (TLA). They bound themselves to honor the outcome. The Bayla survey confirmed encroachments by Sta. Ines into the areas of Agwood and Kalilid. Administrative complaints were filed and consistently decided against Sta. Ines by the Director of Forest Development, the Minister of Natural Resources, and finally the Office of the President. Concurrently, Kalilid secured a writ of preliminary attachment from the Regional Trial Court over logs claimed from the disputed area, which were levied upon by the sheriff.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) Whether the Office of the President committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the administrative findings against Sta. Ines; and (2) Whether the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment by the trial court was valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding both the administrative and judicial actions. On the first issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the President. The factual findings of encroachment were conclusively supported by the Bayla survey, which the parties themselves contractually agreed would be final and binding. The Court emphasized that administrative agencies’ factual determinations, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and finality. Sta. Ines’s attempt to relitigate these settled facts was impermissible. The MOA estopped Sta. Ines from denying the survey results it had agreed to abide by.
Regarding the writ of attachment, the Court ruled it was properly issued. A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy granted at the commencement of an action to secure a potential judgment. The grounds under the Rules of Court include a case for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied. Kalilid’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Sta. Ines had cut and hauled logs from Kalilid’s concession area, constituting a claim for recovery of specific property or its value obtained through fraudulent means. The trial court did not act capriciously in issuing the writ based on these allegations to prevent the potential dissipation of the disputed logs, which were the very subject of the litigation.