Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT
and TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY
CORPORATION, respondents.
________________
* THIRD DIVISION.
674
Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary
15430, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72; San Luis v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 80160, June 26,1989].
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001684000569d01c720fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 190
675
Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001684000569d01c720fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 190
676
Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001684000569d01c720fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 190
CORTÉS, J.:
677
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001684000569d01c720fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 190
_______________
678
x x x
It should be recalled that [petitioner's] earlier request for reinstatement
has been denied in view of the total ban of all logging operations in the
provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao which was
imposed for reasons of conservation and national security.
The Ministry imposed the ban because it realizes the great responsibility
it bear [sic] in respect to forests. It considers itself the trustee thereof. This
being the case, it has to ensure the availability of forest resources not only
for the present, but also for the future generations of Filipinos.
On the other hand, the activities of the insurgents in these parts of the
country are well documented. Their financial demands on logging
concessionaires are well known. The government, therefore, is well within
its right to deprive its enemy of sources of funds in order to preserve itself,
its established institutions and the liberty and democratic way of life of its
people.
x x x
679
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001684000569d01c720fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 190
x x x
Regarding [petitioner's] request that the award of a 26,000 hectare
portion of TLA No. 87 to Twin Peaks Realty Development Corporation
under TLA No. 356 be declared null and void, suffice it to say that the
Ministry is now in the process of reviewing all contracts, permits or other
form of privileges for the exploration, development, exploitation, or
utilization of natural resources entered into, granted, issued or acquired
before the issuance of Proclamation No. 3, otherwise known as the Freedom
Constitution for the purpose of amending, modifying or revoking them
when the national interest so requires.
x x x
The Ministry, through the Bureau of Forest Development, has
jurisdiction and authority over all forest lands. On the basis of this authority,
the Ministry issued the order banning all logging operations/activities in
Quirino province, among others, where movant's former concession area is
located. Therefore, the issuance of an order disallowing any person or entity
from removing cut or uncut logs from the portion of TLA No. 87, now
under TLA No. 356, would constitute an unnecessary or superfluous act on
the part of the Ministry.
x x x
680
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001684000569d01c720fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 190
681
the Bureau. It must be pointed out that the averments in this letter
are entirely different from the charges of fraud against officials
under the previous regime made by petitioner in its letters to public
respondents herein. In the letter to then President Marcos, petitioner
simply contested its inclusion in the list of concessionaires, whose
licenses were cancelled, by defending its record of selective logging
and reforestation practices in the subject concession area. Yet, no
other administrative steps appear to have been taken by petitioner
until 1986, despite the fact that the alleged fraudulent scheme
became apparent in 1984 as evidenced by the awarding of the
subject timber concession area to other entities in that year.
2. Moreover, petitioner is precluded from availing of the benefits
of a writ of certiorari in the present case because he failed to file his
petition within a reasonable period.
The principal issue ostensibly presented for resolution in the
instant petition is whether or not public respondents herein acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in refusing to overturn administrative orders issued by
their predecessors in the past regime. Yet, what the petition
ultimately seeks is the nullification of the Bureau orders cancelling
TLA No. 87 and granting TLA No. 356 to private respondent, which
were issued way back in 1983 and 1984, respectively.
Once again, the fact that petitioner failed to seasonably take
judicial recourse to have the earlier administrative actions reviewed
by the courts through a petition for certiorari is prejudicial to its
cause. For although no specific time frame is fixed for the institution
of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court, the same must nevertheless be done within a
"reasonable time". The yardstick to measure the timeliness of a
petition for certiorari is the "reasonableness of the length of time that
had expired from the commission of the acts complained of up to the
institution of the proceeding to annul the same" [Toledo v. Pardo,
G.R. No. 56761, November 19,1982, 118 SCRA 566, 571]. And
failure to file the
682
683
SEC. 16. The State shall protect and promote the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature.
684
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001684000569d01c720fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 190
685
Petition dismissed.
——o0o——
686
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001684000569d01c720fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13