Facts:

The case involves Agusmin Promotional Enterprises, Inc. (petitioner) against the Court of Appeals, P.B. de Jesus & Co., Inc., Benjamin V. Guiang, and Crisostomo Liceralde (respondents). The events leading to the case began in 1957 when Guiang and Liceralde, holders of timber licenses for forest areas in Talacogon, Agusan del Sur, sought permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to consolidate their timber concessions into a corporation. This request was approved, leading to the formation of Agusmin, which received a consolidated timber license covering 18,890 hectares. However, in 1968, Guiang and Liceralde requested to withdraw their areas from Agusmin due to internal disagreements. The Director of Forestry initially denied this request, but the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources later reversed this decision, allowing the withdrawal.

Guiang and Liceralde then formed P.B. de Jesus & Co., Inc., which received a new timber license...

Facts:

Background and Parties Involved

• AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. (AGUSMIN) was formed by eight timber licensees, including Benjamin V. Guiang and Crisostomo M. Liceralde, in 1957.
• The original timber licenses—Guiang’s Timber License O.T. No. 1489-’57 and Liceralde’s Timber License O.T. No. 1488-’57—covered 5,650 and 2,500 hectares respectively, which were later consolidated into AGUSMIN’s timber license covering 18,890 hectares.
• P.B. de Jesus & Co., Inc. (DE JESUS & CO.) and other related parties later became involved in subsequent consolidations and disputes.

Issues on Consolidation and the Withdrawal of Timber Areas

• In 1968, due to internal differences within AGUSMIN, Guiang and Liceralde requested to have their respective forest areas withdrawn from the consolidated license and combined with another timber license held by Pedro B. de Jesus and Sulpicio Lagnada.
• The Director of Forestry declared the withdrawal request beyond his jurisdiction, contending that the act of consolidation by the eight licensees effectively renounced their separate identities as individual licensees.
• Guiang and Liceralde then appealed to the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) and secured a letter-decision on May 17, 1967, reversing the Director’s finding and authorizing the withdrawal.

Immediate Execution and Formation of DE JESUS & CO.

• Following the DANR decision, Guiang and Liceralde sought immediate implementation by filing a motion for immediate execution upon posting a bond of P161,395.20, despite opposition from AGUSMIN.
• Subsequently, Guiang, Liceralde, and Pedro B. de Jesus organized DE JESUS & CO., which obtained a consolidated timber license on February 12, 1968 that amalgamated individual licenses, thereby giving rise to conflicting interests with AGUSMIN.

Appeals, Motions, and Administrative Controversies

• AGUSMIN appealed the decision of the DANR to the Office of the President, filing requisite notices and appeal memoranda; however, issues arose such as:
• Alleged non-compliance with the prescribed appeal fee under Executive Order No. 19, series of 1966.
• Failure to furnish copies of appeal documents to Guiang and Liceralde, leading them to file an urgent motion to dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds.
• The Office of the President, through a series of decisions (notably on May 7, 1968, and May 8, 1972), reversed and later modified administrative decisions, leaving unresolved the finality of certain determinations regarding the timber areas.

Modification of Timber License and Subsequent Administrative Actions

• In 1970, AGUSMIN requested a renewal of its timber license covering an expanded forest area, which resulted in a modification to 25,560 hectares after DE JESUS & CO. intervened to recall part of the approval.
• AGUSMIN challenged the exclusion of 7,240 hectares but was unsuccessful when the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources denied its appeal in 1971.
• A subsequent appeal to the Office of the President also saw DE JESUS & CO. contending procedural defaults, leading eventually to the cancellation of AGUSMIN’s timber license by Letter of Instruction No. 172 on February 28, 1974.

Litigation and Final Judgment

• Guiang, Liceralde, and DE JESUS & CO. filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeking various declarations and an injunction to protect their awarded forest areas.
• After trial proceedings, on December 26, 1975, the lower court rendered judgment, which:
• Declared the two Office of the President decisions (in DANR Case Nos. 3093-A and 3562) null and void ab initio.
• Declared the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ decision in DANR Case No. 3093-A as final and executory.
• Ordered AGUSMIN to pay DE JESUS & CO. P1,278,834.90 in damages plus interest and P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
• The Court of Appeals later affirmed this judgment in its decision dated February 10, 1978, leading to the present recourse.

Issue:

Finality of Administrative Decisions

• Whether the decision of the Executive Secretary in DANR Cases Nos. 3093-A and 3562 acquired finality, particularly in light of pendency and unresolved motions for reconsideration.
• Whether the issue concerning the validity of the respective timber licenses had become moot and academic due to later administrative cancellations.

Procedural Compliance and the Appellate Process

• Whether AGUSMIN perfected its appeal to the Office of the President in view of its alleged failure to pay the correct appeal fee as required by Executive Order No. 19, series of 1966.
• Whether the failure to timely pay the fee should be sufficient to bar the appeal and affect the due process rights of the parties involved.

Validity of Logging Operations

• Whether AGUSMIN’s logging operations were conducted legally despite the contested administrative decisions, including the posting of a bond to secure potential damages.
• Whether the executed decision by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the subsequent issuance of a consolidated timber license in favor of DE JESUS & CO., precluded AGUSMIN from continuing its operations.

Division of Damages and Rights of Original Licensees

• How the compensatory damages awarded should be allocated among the affected parties (Guiang, Liceralde, and DE JESUS & CO.) given the complexities of consolidation and partial withdrawals.
• Whether the renunciation of rights by Guiang and Liceralde (if any) impacted the distribution of awarded damages.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)