GR L 24548; (October, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24548 October 27, 1983
WENCESLAO VINZONS TAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, APOLONIO RIVERA, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES JOSE Y. FELICIANO, respondents-appellees, RAVAGO COMMERCIAL CO., JORGE LAO HAPPICK and ATANACIO MALLARI, intervenors.
FACTS
Petitioner Wenceslao Vinzons Tan participated in a public bidding for a timber license over a tract of public forest land in Olongapo, Zambales, advertised by the Bureau of Forestry in April 1961. After submitting his application and complying with all requirements, the area was awarded to him on April 15, 1963. However, other bidders filed motions for reconsideration. Subsequently, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, exercising supervisory authority, issued General Memorandum Order No. 46, s. 1963, which directed the cancellation of the award and the reversion of the area to a forest reserve for watershed purposes. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Manila, challenging the Secretary’s order.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has the legal authority to revoke a timber license previously awarded by the Director of Forestry, and whether such revocation constitutes a valid exercise of administrative power.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, upholding the Secretary’s authority to revoke the timber license. The Court clarified that a timber license is not a contract or a property right but a mere privilege or license granted by the State. It is subject to the inherent police power of the State to regulate or revoke for the public welfare, specifically for the conservation of forest resources and protection of watersheds. The Court emphasized that the Director of Forestry, as a subordinate officer, is under the control and supervision of the Department Head pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code. This power of control includes the authority to alter, modify, or set aside the acts of the subordinate. Consequently, the Secretary’s order cancelling the award and reclassifying the area as a forest reserve was a valid exercise of this supervisory power, especially when grounded on the paramount public interest of forest conservation and watershed protection as mandated by the Constitution. The Court found no vested right violated, as the license remained a revocable privilege.