Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2013
2730 WORDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
VI
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
IX
ARGUMENTS
X-XIII
I. The Court of First Instance of Manila did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in
issuing ex parte the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by respondent company.
II. Respondent P & B Enterprises Co., Inc. had exhausted administrative remedies
before filing a petition of certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
III. There are no grounds for the motion to dismiss the writ of preliminary injunction due
to the fact that P&B Enterprises Co., Inc. obtained prejudice and irreparable injury
PRAYER
XIV
II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Et Al.
Co.
Corporation
Inc.
Incorporated
SCRA
III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CITED CASES
Republic of the Philippines v. Lacap
Jariol v. Comelec
XI
XI
LEGAL BASIS
XI
XII
XIII
IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Team 7 (legal counsels of Gaudencio Cloribel, et al.) on its own behalf have
approached the Supreme Court of Justice for hearing issues relating to principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies under Administrative Code of the Philippines.
Team 7 submits its jurisdiction to this Honourable Court.
VI
7. The Court in response to the companys request, issued ex parte the writ of
preliminary injunction prohibiting Vicente De Lara, Jr. and his aids in cutting,
hauling, shipping and exporting logs from forest area intercepting forest
concession area of P&B Enterprises Co., Inc.
8. P&B Enterprises Co., Inc., in response to the petition for certiorari and
issuance of writ of preliminary injunction to maintain status quo of logging
operations of parties, admitted issuance by respondent court of ex parte writ
of injunction since such injunction was necessary to prevent bodily injury and
violence to employees of Respondent company in view of De Laras threat to
appropriate and utilize private logging road constructed by P&B Enterprises
Co., Inc. through use of force and political influence.
VII
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The parties have placed before this Honorable Court the following questions
for its consideration:
1. Whether the respondent court has committed a grave abuse of discretion in
issuing ex parte the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by respondent
company (P&B Enterprises Co., Inc.)?
2. Whether P&B Enterprises Co., Inc. failed to exhaust its administrative
remedies in appealing to the respondent court?
3. Whether the praying for certiorari by petitioners justifiable in the issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction?
4. Whether the prayer for the dismissal of the writ of preliminary injunction is
justifiable?
VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It should be recalled that one of the grounds invoked by petitioner De Lara before
respondent court in his motion to dismiss the complaint filed by respondent
company is that the latter has failed to exhaust all its administrative remedies in
that it filed said complaint before the appeal taken from the order of Director of
Forestry allowing De Lara to use the logging road and constructed within
contested forest area could be finally acted upon by Secretary of Agricultural and
Natural Resources, implying therefore such action was premature.
While as a rule of petition for cetiorari which is interposed to dispute the validity
of an order or decision that may be rendered by an administrative official in
pursuance of the powers and duties with which he is invested cannot be
entertained if the party in interest fails to avail of the administrative remedies
officials are the most competent to pass upon matters that exclusively come
within their jurisdiction, 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. Stated otherwise, the rule is
inapplicable if it should appear that an 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. This is the situation herein
obtained. Because of the conflict existing between petitioner and respondent
company regarding a portion of the logging area awarded to them, as well as the
use of the logging road constructed by the company, the case was taken to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for his final resolution, who in the
meantime directed petitioner "to refrain from entering and operating within the
contested area until the said case shall have been finally decided," but before
such resolution could come De Lara disregarded the directive and continued
operating within the contested area to the irreparable damage and injury of the
company. This act of defiance prompted the company to take the appropriate
action. In the circumstances, we find the action taken by respondent court proper
and justified even if no final decision has as yet been rendered by the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Respondent court did nothing but to
maintain and put into effect the directive issued by said official.
IX
ARGUMENTS
I.
The Court of First Instance of Manila did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion in issuing ex parte the writ of preliminary injunction
prayed for by respondent company.
Also in the case of Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Abad, 206 SCRA 482,
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to
XI
LEGAL REASONING:
While as a rule of petition for cetiorari which is interposed to dispute the
validity of an order or decision that may be rendered by an administrative
official in pursuance of the powers and duties with which he is invested
cannot be entertained if the party in interest fails to avail of the
administrative remedies officials are the most competent to pass upon
matters that exclusively come within their jurisdiction, 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.
XII
III.
There are no grounds for the dismissal of the issued writ of preliminary
injunction because in the first place, the performance of land improvements
XIII
was made on the forest concession area granted upon P&B Enterprises Co.,
Inc. in its license. It clearly shows that it was De Lara, Jr. who made fault in
this case for he was the one who intercepted the concession area not his.
The portion of the intercepted concession area belongs to P&B Enterprises
Co., Inc. as stated in its granted license by Bureau of Forestry. As stated in
the 1961 granted license to respondent P&B Enterprises Co., Inc.
PRAYER
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, legal
counsels of Gaudencio Cloribel et.al respectfully requests this court to adjudge and
declare that:
1. The respondent court did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the writ of
preliminary injunction.
2. The respondent company has exhausted all administrative methods before
appealing to the respondent court.
XIV
XV