G.R. No. L-21653 May 31, 1965
VICENTE DE LARA, JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On June 17, 1963, P & B Enterprises Co., Inc. filed a complaint for injunction and damages against Vicente de Lara, Jr. and the Bureau of Forestry before the Court of First Instance of Manila. P & B alleged that it was granted a timber license on September 25, 1961, over approximately 25,000 hectares in Claveria, Misamis Oriental. The company made substantial improvements and constructed a logging road costing about P139,000.00, part of which extended into an area later included in a renewed timber license granted to De Lara for 1963. P & B protested this conflict to the Director of Forestry and appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which appeal remained pending. Despite an order from the Secretary on June 7, 1963, prohibiting De Lara from entering and operating within the contested area until the conflict was finally decided, De Lara continued his logging operations, trespassing and using the road constructed by P & B. The respondent court issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction enjoining De Lara from cutting, hauling, shipping, and exporting logs from the forest area covered by P & B’s license. De Lara filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that P & B failed to exhaust administrative remedies since its appeal to the Secretary was still pending. The respondent court denied the motion to dismiss and the motion to dissolve the injunction. De Lara then filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Has respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing ex parte the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by respondent company?

RULING

No, the respondent court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. While the general rule requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before resorting to court action, this rule may be relaxed when its application would cause great and irreparable damage that cannot otherwise be prevented except by taking opportune court action. In this case, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources had already directed De Lara to refrain from operating within the contested area pending final resolution of the conflict. De Lara’s defiance of this directive and continued operations threatened to cause irreparable damage and injury to P & B Enterprises Co., Inc. Therefore, the action taken by the respondent court to maintain the status quo and enforce the Secretary’s directive was proper and justified, even absent a final administrative decision. The petition was dismissed, and the injunction issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved.