Shahira Karla R.

Belandres

Constitutional Law II

HON. HEHERSON ALVAREZ substituted by HON. ELISEA G. GOZUN, in her capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
vs.
PICOP RESOURCES, INC.

G.R. No. 162243            November 29, 2006

PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
HON. HEHERSON ALVAREZ substituted by HON. ELISEA G. GOZUN, in her capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Respondent.

G.R. No. 164516            November 29, 2006

THE HON. ANGELO T. REYES (formerly Hon. Elisea G. Gozun), in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Petitioner,
vs.
PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHILIPPINES (PICOP), Respondent.

G.R. No. 171875            November 29, 2006

These are three consolidated petitions on the decision granting the petition for mandamus filed
by Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP).

Facts:

Respondent PICOP was granted Timber License Agreement (TLA) No. 43 covering an area of
75,545 hectares in Surigao del Sur, Agusan del Sur, Compostela Valley, and Davao Oriental, to be
terminated on April 25, 2002. To comply with DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 99-53 mandating
the conversion of the TLA into IFMA that is primarily aimed at sustaining the raw materials for the
continuous operation of the integrated wood processing plant of the company, the respondent signified
its intention to convert its TLA No. 43 into an Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA).

A Performance Evaluation Team indicated violations by respondents namely: a) the non-

submission of its five-year forest protection plan and seven-year reforestation plan as required by the
DENR rules and regulations; and b) alleged unpaid and overdue forest charges of PICOP.
 However, PICOP representative Atty. Caingat, claimed that the conversion of TLA No. 43 into
IFMA has already been completed and indicated that they had no choice except to decline participation
in the ongoing meeting and bring our issues to the proper public and legal forum.

Meanwhile, the Secretary of DENR claims that further processing of PICOP’s application for the
conversion of TLA No. 43 cannot proceed until PICOP complies with the requirements. Respondent filed
a Petition for Mandamus, insisting that the conversion of its TLA No. 43 had been completed, against
then DENR Secretary Alvarez before the RTC of Quezon City. The RTC rendered a Decision granting
respondent’s Petition for Mandamus. On appeal, CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC.

DENR filed a petition assailing that the mandamus filed by respondent should be out rightly
dismissed on the ground that RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case since the acts
questioned herein are related to the licensing regulation and management of forest resources.
Furthermore, RTC is prohibited to issue TRO, writs of preliminary injunction and preliminary mandatory
injunction as provided by PD605 and RA8975.

Issue:

Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case because the
subject matter pertains to the exclusive administrative domain of DENR secretary.

Held:

Yes. The Petition filed before the trial court was one for mandamus with prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction with damages. Specifically, it sought to
compel the DENR Secretary to: (1) sign, execute and deliver the IFMA documents to PICOP; (2) issue the
corresponding IFMA number assignment; and (3) approve the harvesting of timber by PICOP from the
area of TLA No. 43.

In its petition for mandamus, respondent asserted that DENR Secretary Alvarez acted with grave
abuse of discretion or in excess of his jurisdiction in refusing to perform his ministerial duty to sign,
execute and deliver the IFMA contract and to issue the corresponding IFMA number to it. What is at
stake is not the scope of the DENR jurisdiction but the manner by which it exercises or refuses to
exercise that jurisdiction.

Moreover, the courts have the duty and power to strike down any official act or omission
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The 1987 Constitution is explicit in providing that judicial power
includes not only the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the government. Since PICOP alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DENR Secretary, it
behooves the court to determine the same. An outright dismissal of the case would have prevented
such determination.

Lastly, the petition in G.R. No. 162243 is granted. The decision of CA affirming the decision
granting the petition for mandamus filed by respondent PICOP is reversed and set aside. Moreover, the
petition in G.R. No. 164516 seeking the reversal of the same decision is denied for lack of merit. And the
petition in G.R. 171875 assailing the lifting of preliminary injunction is dismissed on the ground of
mootness.