You are on page 1of 3

Gonzalez, Jose Axel Legal Technique and Logic Leonardo Paat vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 111107 January 10, 1997 1.

This Court in a long line of cases has consistently held that 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 court's judicial power can be sought. 2. However, we are not amiss to reiterate that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as tested by a battery of cases is not an ironclad rule. This 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, 17 (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, and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention . 3. In the case at bar, there is no question that the controversy was pending before the Secretary of DENR when it was forwarded to him following the denial by the petitioners of the motion for reconsideration of private respondents through the order of July 12, 1989. In their letter of reconsideration dated June 28, 1989, private respondents clearly recognize the presence of an administrative forum to which they seek to avail, as they did avail, in the resolution of their case. The letter, reads, thus:

4. however. Administrative Authority of the Department or His Duly Authorized Representative To Order Confiscation. rules and regulations. It lies to recover possession of personal chattels that are . regulations and policies on the matter. gathered. which is quoted herein below: “Sec.xxx xxx xxx If this motion for reconsideration does not merit your favorable action. removed. the Department Head or his duly authorized representative. they acknowledged the existence of an adequate and plain remedy still available and open to them in the ordinary course of the law. without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. thus. It was easy to perceive then that the private respondents looked up to the Secretary for the review and disposition of their case. In all cases of violation of this Code or other forest laws. 5. due to the fact that private respondents' interpretation of the subject provision unduly restricts the clear intention of the law and inevitably reduces the other provision of Section 68A. Thus. but to a large extent. A reading. or possessed or abandoned. that a suit for replevin is founded solely on the claim that the defendant wrongfully withholds the property sought to be recovered. By appealing to him. rules and regulations. of the law persuades us not to go along with private respondents' thinking not only because the aforequoted provision apparently does not mention nor include "conveyances" that can be the subject of confiscation by the courts. (Emphasis ours)” It is. seek court's intervention by filing an action for replevin for the grant of their relief during the pendency of an administrative proceeding. then this letter should be considered as an appeal to the Secretary. It is worth stressing at this point. clear from the foregoing provision that the Secretary and his duly authorized representatives are given the authority to confiscate and forfeit any conveyances utilized in violating the Code or other forest laws. water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws. they cannot now. may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut. and all conveyances used either by land. 68-A.

that it is exempt from such seizure. without manual seizing of the property is sufficient. Evidently. hence. Under the Rules of Court. the continued possession or detention of the truck by the petitioners for administrative forfeiture proceeding is legally permissible. Private respondents miserably failed to convince this Court that a wrongful detention of the subject truck obtains in the instant case. 705 as amended by E. or if so seized. alleging the cause of detention. "To detain" is defined as to mean "to hold or keep in custody. this. or attachment. or an exercise or claim of dominion over it. .D. that the same has not been taken for tax assessment. no wrongful detention exists in the case at bar. 705. without any pretense of authority or right. and the actual value of the property.O 277.unlawfully detained. unquestionably warrants the confiscation as well as the disposition by the Secretary of DENR or his duly authorized representatives of the conveyances used in violating the provision of forestry laws.D. or seized under execution. that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant. as amended. Section 68-A of P. It should be noted that the truck was seized by the petitioners because it was transporting forest products without the required permit of the DENR in manifest contravention of Section 68 of P. it is indispensable in replevin proceeding that the plaintiff must show by his own affidavit that he is entitled to the possession of property." and it has been held that there is tortious taking whenever there is an unlawful meddling with the property.