ELAC v.

DENR

Facts:

Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Inc. caught Manning Buttona Buo, Delia Anderson’s

employee, in the act of cutting a langka-langka tree in Sitio Calapa, Banbanan, Taytay,

Palawan.

- Buo failed to present:

1. permit to cut
2. Registration papers of the chainsaw
- A letter complaint was filed with DENR-PENRO. A hearing was conducted with the
PENRO to determine if the chainsaw should be confiscated for violating the Chainsaw
Act of 2002
- A recommendation was issued by CENRO:
1. Thinning and cutting undesirable trees (silvicultural methods/practices which are
treatments to hasten the growth of planted trees) does not require a permit within the
ISF establishment forest plantations. It is stipulated in the certificate of stewardship,
that the steward/s shall have the right to manage and work in the forest landholdings
in accordance with appropriate forestland and farm methods and practices.
2. Mrs. Anderson cannot be faulted because she complied with all the requirements of
the PCSDS. PCSDS was at fault for the mis-entry. The chainsaw was registered on
April 20, 2004 and will expire on April 20, 2009. The chainsaw was apprehended on
September 22, 2004. Clearly Mrs. Anderson was not at fault.
3. The CSC holder did not fail to coordinate with CENRO every time there is an activity
in the CSC Area.
4. The thinning or cutting of undesirable trees implemented by Mrs. Anderson was not
yet covered by the Memorandum Circular, given that it was done prior to issuance of
the memorandum.
5. Release chainsaw in favor of Mrs. Anderson
- ELAC filed MR with the Office of the Regional Executive Director (RED), but was denied
- ELAC appealed the resolution to the Office of the Secretary of the DENR
- The Secretary of the DENR affirmed the resolution of RED
- ELAC moved for reconsideration of the order, but was denied
- ELAC filed a Petition for Certiorari alleging that the DENR Secretary acted with grave
abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed order and the subsequent order denying
the motion for reconsideration.
- Argument of Petitioner:
1. There is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
because public respondent had not cited any forestry law, rule, or regulation which
states that private respondent is allowed to cut down naturally grown trees within her
stewardship area.
- Argument of Respondents:
1. Thinning and cutting undesirable trees does not require a permit within the ISF
establishment forest plantations
2. Mrs. Anderson cannot be faulted because she complied with all the requirements of
the PCSDS. PCSDS was at fault for the mis-entry. The chainsaw was registered on
April 20, 2004 and will expire on April 20, 2009. The chainsaw was apprehended on
 September 22, 2004. Clearly Mrs. Anderson was not at fault.
3. The thinning or cutting of undesirable trees implemented by Mrs. Anderson was not
yet covered by the Memorandum Circular, given that it was done prior to issuance of
the memorandum.
4. Mis-entry in the registration and the failure to put sticker on the subject chainsaw
should not be blamed to Ms. Anderson, and it is not a sufficient cause to confiscate
it.

Issue: Whether or not the chainsaw should be released in favor of Mrs. Anderson

Held: YES

1. The records clearly show that private respondent presented documents showing that the
chainsaw was properly registered.
- Affidavit of Ownership of the Chainsaw
- Certificate of Registration of the Chainsaw
- other documents relative to her silvicultural treatments which she has implemented in
her forest plantation.

2. Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the
exercise of its adjudicative functions. This latitude includes the authority to take judicial
notice of facts within its special competence. It has been an established principle that
factual findings of administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence are
binding on this Court and entitled to great weight and respect, considering the expertise
of these agencies in their respective fields.

As seen in this case, the public respondent’s determination was done pursuant to its
quasi-judicial functions. The Court is convinced that the quantum of proof on record was
able to overcome the substantiality of evidence test to support a decision, which is a
basic requirement in an administrative adjudication.

The Court added that the evidence must be substantial and more than a mere scintilla.
This means such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to
support a conclusion. (Ang Tibay v. CIR)

Hence, the same must be accorded respect and finality and considered binding upon the
courts.

3. Although there are exceptions to the rule such as:

- The issuing authority has gone beyond its statutory authority
- Exercised unconstitutional powers
- Clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty
- Grave abuse of discretion

Petitioner failed to prove that the case applies to one of the aforementioned exceptions.
Petitioner tried to force other issues which were not raised in its complaint before the DENR.
As it is already established, the issue does not concern illegal logging, but rather the alleged
violation of the Chainsaw Act of 2002.

Again, the findings of PENRO are unrebutted

 a. Mis-entry committed by PCSDS
b. Requirements were complied with by Mrs. Andersson
c. The chainsaw was registered prior to the apprehension

4. The policy of the courts is not to interfere with the exercise of administrative bodies of
their adjudicatory functions unless there is a clear showing of arbitrary action of palpable
and serious error. The legal presumption that official duty has been performed by
administrative agencies vested with powers that are quasi-judicial in nature is
considered strong, in relation to the enforcement of laws affecting different fields of
activity, the proper regulation, and/or promotion of which requires a technical or special
training, aside from good knowledge and grasp of the overall condition, relevant to said
field.

Hence, it is not the task of courts to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the
administrative body and to substitute its own judgment.

5. Lastly, a writ of certiorari may be issued only when there is patent and gross abuse of
discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It implies
a capricious and whimsical exercise of power.

In short, certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not to correct errors of
procedure or mistakes in the judge’s findings and conclusions. In addition, it does not include an
inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. All in all, there is no reason to disturb
the findings of the public respondent which are supported by substantial evidence.