May 31, 1965Ponente: Bautista Angelo, J.
FACTS
In 1957, Vicente de Lara, Jr. was granted by the Bureau of Forestry ("Bureau") a timber license to log over an area of about 300 hectares in Claveria, Misamis Oriental. This license was renewed annually until 1962, when his application for renewal was rejected by the Bureau.
During De Lara's period of non-renewal of his timber license, the application for a similar forest concession filed by P&B Enterprises Co., Inc. was processed and subsequently granted by the Bureau. P&B's license covered a forest area of approximately 25,000 hectares, also in Claveria, Misamis Oriental. Pursuant to the Bureau's rules and regulations, P&B constructed logging roads within the forest area covered by its timber license.
In 1963, De Lara's application for the renewal of his timber license was granted by the Bureau. However, his license covered a portion of the forest concession area originally granted to P&B Enterprises. Expectedly, P&B lodged a complaint before the Bureau, but such complaint was overruled. Thereafter, P&B appealed the Bureau's decision to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
While the abovementioned appeal was pending, De Lara continued his logging operations in the disputed forest area. De Lara also used the private logging roads constructed by P&B Enterprises, prompting the latter to file a complaint before the Director of the Bureau, who initially prohibited De Lara from using said roads but later revoked such order. Because of this, P&B was compelled to appeal yet again to the Secretary of Agriculture, who ruled that pending the resolution of the dispute between the two parties, De Lara should not enter and operate within the contested forest area.
Boasting of his political clout (he was friends with the provincial governor) and threatening to use violence, De Lara continued his logging operations in the disputed area despite being prohibited from doing so by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Consequently, P&B Enterprises filed before the CFI of Manila a complaint for injunction and damages againt De Lara and the Bureau. The CFI issued ex parte a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining De Lara and his aids from cutting, hauling, shipping, and exporting logs from the forest area covered by the timber license issued in P&B's favor.
De Lara filed a motion to dismiss, as well as to dissolve the injunction, alleging that P&B failed to exhaust all administrative remedies, given that the Secretary of Agriculture had yet to rule on the appeal filed by P&B. The CFI denied the motion, hence the instant petition.
RULING
Petition denied.
Whether the CFI of Manila committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of P&B Enterprises even though the latter had not yet exhausted all its administrative remedies. – NO.
As a rule, a petition filed to dispute the validity of an order or decision that may be rendered by an administrative official cannot be entertained if the party in interest fails to avail of the administrative remedies, since administrative officials are the most competent to pass upon matters that exclusively come within their jurisdiction. However, such rule may be relaxed when its application may cause great and irreparable damage which cannot otherwise be prevented except by taking the opportune appropriate court action.
In other words, the rule on the exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable if it should appear that a great and irreparable damage and injury will be suffered by a party if he should await, before taking court action, the final action of the administrative official concerned on the matter.
As applied in the instant case, De Lara's defiance of the Secretary of Agriculture's order for him not to enter and operate within the contested forest area pending the resolution of P&B's appeal could result in an irreparable damage and injury to P&B Enterprises. As such, even though the Secretary of Agriculture was yet to resolve P&B's appeal, P&B cannot be faulted for bringing an action before the CFI.
In fact, in issuing the subject writ of preliminary injunction, the CFI of Manila merely put into effect the directive issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. Indeed, before the protest lodged by P&B could be decided regarding the conflicting interests, it is best that the status quo be maintained. On this end, the CFI of Manila committed no abuse of discretion.
DOCTRINE
The rule on the exhaustion of administrative remedies is
inapplicable if it should appear that a great and irreparable damage
and injury will be suffered by a party if he should await, before taking
court action, the final action of the administrative official concerned
on the matter.
