Calub vs CA

April 27, 2000

(Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies)
Courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not entertain suits
unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the
proper authorities have been given an appropriate opportunity to act and correct
their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum.
FACTS:
Petitioners are DENR Officers who seized 2 motor vehicles for transporting illegally
cut lumber. The Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Team of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR apprehended two
(2) motor vehicles. Constancio Abuganda and Pio Gabon, the drivers of the vehicles,
failed to present proper documents and/or licenses. Thus, the apprehending team
seized and impounded the vehicles and its load of lumber at the DENR-PENR
(Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources) Office in Catbalogan. Seizure receipts were issued but the
drivers refused to accept the receipts.
Felipe Calub, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer, then filed
before the Provincial Prosecutors Office in Samar, a criminal complaint against
Abuganda for violation of Sec. 78, PD 705 as amended by EO 277, otherwise known
as the Revised Forestry Code (RFC). The owner and the driver filed a case against
them for the recovery of the possession of the motor vehicle.
ISSUE:
Will the Application for Replevin prosper?
HELD:
No. The vehicle is in custodia legis. The RFC authorizes the DENR to seize all
conveyances used in the commission of an offense in violation of Sec. 78. Since the
provision makes mere possession of lumber without the necessary documentation
illegal, the act committed by Abuganda, was a crime in itself.
There was prima facie violation of Sec. 78, as the ones in possession of the lumber
were not able to present a permit for such. Thus, a warrantless seizure of the
involved vehicles and its load was allowed under Sec. 78-A and Sec. 89 of the RFC.
Since there was a prima facie violation of such, and the seizure was in accordance
with law, the subject vehicles can be validly deemed in custodia legis. Thus, such
could not be an action for replevin as it is property lawfully taken by virtue of a legal
process.