Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

G.R. No. 111107 Paat v. CA

Torres, Jr., J.

Respondents truck was seized by petitioners, DENR officials, for transporting forestry products without a permit. While
forfeiture proceedings (of the truck) were ongoing in the DENR, respondents filed a suit for replevin before the RTC to
recover the said truck. RTC granted the writ and ordered DENR to return the truck to respondents. SC reversed the RTC
and held that respondents violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies by going to the RTC.

Moreover, the suit for replevin cannot prosper because the acts of the DENR in implementing the Forestry Law may only
be appealed to the DENR Secretary, whose acts may only be reviewable by the courts in a petition for certiorari and
prohibition.

DOCTRINE
Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the
means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be
resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the courts judicial power can be sought. The premature
invocation of court intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.

The doctrine is a relative one and its flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and
circumstantial settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded:
(1) when there is a violation of due process,
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question,
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned,
(5) when there is irreparable injury,
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied
and assumed approval of the latter,
(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable,
(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim,
(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings,
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention,
(12) when the administrative act complained of is patently illegal.
Here, respondents tried to invoke the exceptions in (1), (10) and (13), but the SC held that they do not apply to this case.

The proper administrative remedy, in this case, is to appeal the DENR Secretarys decision to the courts through a special
civil action for certiorari and prohibition, not a suit for replevin.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Leonardo Paat1 OIC-Regional Executive Director (RED), DENR Region II; petitioner
Jovito Layugan Community Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO) Officer, Aritao, Cagayan; petitioner
Sps. Bienvenido and Victoria de Guzman respondents

FACTS
1. The truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman, while on its way to Bulacan from Cagayan, was seized by
the DENR in Nueva Vizcaya because the driver couldnt produce the required documents for the forest
products found concealed in the truck.
Petitioner Layugan (of CENRO) issued an order of confiscation of the truck and gave the de Guzmans 15
days to explain why the truck should not be forfeited.
The De Guzmans failed to submit the required explanation.
2. RED Baggayan of DENR ordered the forfeiture of the truck, invoking Sec. 68-A, PD 7052 (The Forestry Law).
The De Guzmans filed an MR contesting the forfeiture, which was denied.
1 The forfeiture of the truck was actually ordered by RED Rogelio Baggayan (see Fact #2), but he died during the pendency of the case
and was substituted by his successor, RED Paat, in the SC petition.
1
3. The De Guzmans then appealed to the DENR Secretary in a letter for reconsideration.
4. While the appeal to the DENR Secretary was pending, the De Guzmans filed a suit for replevin against
petitioners before RTC Cagayan.
RTC issued a writ of replevin ordering the return of the truck to the De Guzmans.
5. DENR (through petitioners) filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the De Guzmans had no cause of action for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
RTC denied this MD and petitioners MR.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which was also denied (because the issue involved
was a purely legal question).
Thus, this instant petition for review on certiorari with prayer for TRO and/or preliminary injunction
before the SC.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N an action for replevin to recover a movable property may prosper if the same property is the subject
matter of an administrative forfeiture proceeding in the DENR No.
Petitioner DENR argues that the RTC cant entertain the replevin suit because the truck was still under
administrative forfeiture proceedings in the DENR. (For the RTC to do so would violate the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies.)
Respondents de Guzman aver that this case falls under two exceptions to the doctrine:
o Due process was violated because they werent given a chance to be heard; and
o The seizure and forfeiture was unlawful because:
The DENR has no authority to confiscate conveyances utilized in transporting illegal forestry
products, and
The truck as admitted by petitioners was not used in the commission of the crime.
SC agrees with the DENR.
(see Doctrine)
There was an appeal pending before the DENR Secretary by the De Guzmans (see Fact #3-4). The fact that
respondents even appealed to the Secretary means they recognized the existence of an adequate and
plain remedy still available in the ordinary course of law.
o Thus, they cannot now file a civil suit before the RTC while the DENR proceedings were ongoing.
It is important to point out that the enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection,
development and management of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the
DENR.
o By the very nature of its function, the DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial
intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its jurisdiction.
o The assumption by the RTC of the replevin suit filed by private respondents constitutes an
unjustified encroachment into the domain of the administrative agencys prerogative (violating
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction).
Respondents arguments do not have merit.
o Re: violation of due process cannot be invoked when a party was given a chance to be heard
through an MR. The respondents were thus afforded this right when they appealed to the DENR
Secretary.
o Re: illegality of the seizure and forfeiture Sec. 68-A, PD 705 explicitly states that the DENR may
confiscate conveyances of illegal forest products (see Footnote #2).
It is worth noting that a suit for replevin is founded solely on the claim that the defendant wrongfully
withholds the property sought to be recovered. It lies to recover possession of personal chattels that are
unlawfully detained.
o In this case, respondents failed to establish that the DENR wrongfully possessed the subject
truck. DENR lawfully confiscated the truck because it was in direct contravention of PD 705, which
penalizes with forfeiture the transporting of forestry products without a permit.
o Moreover, a suit for replevin is not intended to be a tool in questioning the orders of the DENR
Secretary. Sec. 8, PD 7053 specifically states that actions concerning the enforcement of the same

2 SECTION 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department or His Duly Authorized Representative To Order Confiscation. In all cases
of violation of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly authorized representative,
may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances
used either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws,
regulations and policies on the matter.
2
 law are subject to review by the DENR Secretary and that courts may not review the decisions of
the Secretary except through a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition granted. CA and RTC reversed. Case remanded to DENR.

DIGESTER: Cristelle Elaine Collera

3 SECTION 8 . REVIEW - All actions and decisions of the Director are subject to review, motu propio or upon appeal of any person
aggrieved thereby, by the Department Head whose decision shall be final and executory after the lapse of thirty (30) days from the
receipt of the aggrieved party of said decision, unless appealed to the President in accordance with Executive Order No. 19, Series of
1966. The Decision of the Department Head may not be reviewed by the courts except through a special civil action for certiorari or
prohibition.
3