Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24548)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24548)
Facts:
Wenceslao Vinzons Tan v. The Director of Forestry, Apolonio Rivera, et al., G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, Supreme Court Second Division, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Wenceslao Vinzons Tan participated in public bidding under Bureau of Forestry Notice No. 2087 (April 1961) for a 6,420-hectare tract in Olongapo, Zambales, part of the former U.S. Naval Reservation. He filed his bid on May 5, 1961; nine others also bid. After deliberations, the Bureau awarded the tract to petitioner on April 15, 1963. Aggrieved bidders Ravago Commercial Company and Jorge Lao Happick sought reconsideration, which the Director denied on December 6, 1963.
On May 30, 1963, Secretary Benjamin M. Gozon issued General Memorandum Order No. 46, s.1963, delegating to the Director of Forestry authority to grant new ordinary timber licenses (OTLs) for areas not exceeding 3,000 hectares. On December 19, 1963, Acting Secretary Jose Y. Feliciano issued General Memorandum Order No. 60, revoking that delegation and directing that issuance of new licenses and renewals be signed by the Secretary. Ordinary Timber License No. 20-’64 in petitioner’s name bore an April 22, 1963 date, was signed by Acting Director Estanislao R. Bernal, and was released by the Director’s office on January 6, 1964 without the Secretary’s signature.
Challengers wrote the Secretary alleging irregularity; on March 9, 1964 the Secretary declared O.T.L. No. 20-’64 void ab initio and directed stoppage of logging. A motion for reconsideration was denied (March 25, 1964), and on April 11, 1964 the Secretary dismissed the appeals of Ravago and Happick, deeming the matter closed. On April 18, 1964 petitioner filed Special Civil Action No. 56813 in the Court of First Instance (CFI), Manila, seeking certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul the Secretary’s orders and to enforce his license; he also claimed constitutional deprivations and damages. Intervenors were permitted and opposed the petition; respondents moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including lack of cause of action, absence of jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies and State immunity.
The CFI held hearings, admitted evidence, and on January 20, 1965 dismissed the petition for failure to state a sufficient cause of action, finding the license void ab initio because the Director lacked authority after the December 19, 1963 revocation; the denial of reconsideration was also sustained. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the petition state a sufficient cause of action?
- Had petitioner exhausted available administrative remedies before resorting to the courts?
- Was the action barred by State immunity from suit?
- Was O.T.L. No. 20-’64 validly issued and, if valid, could it be revoked in the circumstances presented?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)