[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
751 views2 pages

Dagudag v. Paderanga

Judge Paderanga improperly issued a writ of replevin ordering the return of confiscated illegal forest products to the claimant. The issuance of the writ was improper for three reasons: 1) The claimant did not exhaust administrative remedies with the DENR before filing in court; 2) Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot intervene in cases under the jurisdiction of administrative agencies like the DENR; and 3) The forest products were already in custodia legis after being lawfully seized by the DENR for forestry violations, and were thus not subject to replevin.

Uploaded by

Daniela Sandra Agoot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
751 views2 pages

Dagudag v. Paderanga

Judge Paderanga improperly issued a writ of replevin ordering the return of confiscated illegal forest products to the claimant. The issuance of the writ was improper for three reasons: 1) The claimant did not exhaust administrative remedies with the DENR before filing in court; 2) Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot intervene in cases under the jurisdiction of administrative agencies like the DENR; and 3) The forest products were already in custodia legis after being lawfully seized by the DENR for forestry violations, and were thus not subject to replevin.

Uploaded by

Daniela Sandra Agoot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

15) Dagudag v.

Paderanga

A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017, June 19, 2008, 555 SCRA 217

FACTS:

 An information was received by the Region VII Philippine National Police


Regional Maritime Group (PNPRMG) that MV General Ricarte of NMC
Container Lines, Inc. was shipping container vans containing illegal forest
products from Cagayan de Oro to Cebu.
 Upon inspection, the crew of MV General Ricarte failed to produce the
Certificate of Origin and other pertinent transport documents covering the
forest products, as required by DAO No. 07-94. After due notice, the illegal
forest products were confiscated in favor of the government.
 In a complaint filed before Judge Paderanga, a certain Roger C. Edma prayed
that a writ of replevin be issued ordering the defendants DENR, CENRO, Gen.
Dagudag, and others to deliver the forest products to him. Judge Paderanga
then issued a writ of replevin.
 Consequently, Gen. Dagudag filed an affidavit-complaint charging Judge
Paderanga with gross ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming of a
judge due to the latter’s act[s] of taking cognizance of the replevin suit,
issuing the writ of replevin.

ISSUE:

WON the issuance of the writ of replevin is proper.

HELD:

No. The issuance of the writ of replevin was improper. Judge Paderanga
should have dismissed the replevin suit outright for three reasons.

First, as cited in Factoran, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, under the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies, courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before
administrative agencies. Similarly in Dy v. Court of Appeals and Paat vs. Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court held that a party must exhaust all administrative
remedies before he can resort to the courts.

In the instant case, Edma did not resort to, or avail of, any administrative remedy.
He went straight to court and filed a complaint for replevin and damages. Section 8
of PD No. 705, as amended, states that (1) all actions and decisions of the Bureau
of Forest Development Director are subject to review by the DENR Secretary; (2)
the decisions of the DENR Secretary are appealable to the President; and (3) the
courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR Secretary except through a special
civil action for certiorari or prohibition. In Dy, the Court held that all actions seeking
to recover forest products in the custody of the DENR shall be directed to that
agency – not the courts.

Second, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot take cognizance of
cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence. The DENR is
the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws. The complaint for
replevin itself stated that members of DENR’s Task Force Sagip Kalikasan took over
the forest products and brought them to the DENR Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office. This should have alerted Judge Paderanga that the DENR
had custody of the forest products.

Third, the forest products are already in custodia legis and thus cannot be the
subject of replevin. There was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the
DENR seized the forest products in accordance with law.

You might also like