FACTS
C
& M Timber Corporation seeks the nullification of the order of the Office
of the President, declaring as of no force and effect Timber License Agreement
issued to petitioner covering hectares of forest land in the Province of Aurora
and Quirino Province.
It
appears that Filipinas Loggers Development Corporation (FLDC), through its president
and general manager, requested a timber concession over the same area covered
by petitioners alleging that the same had been cancelled pursuant to a
presidential directive banning all forms of logging in the area. Accordingly
the Ministry of Natural Resources issued TLA covering the same area, thus,
began logging operations
Then
Minister of Natural Resources suspended the TLA for FLDCs gross violation of
the terms and conditions thereof, especially the reforestation and selective
logging activities and in consonance with the national policy on forest
conservation. In spite of the suspension, said concessionaire has continued
logging operations in violation of forestry rules and regulations.
Learning
of the cancellation of FLDCs TLA, petitioner
requested for the revalidation of its TLA.
Petitioner alleged that because of the log ban imposed by the previous
administration it had to stop its logging operations, but that when the ban was
lifted, its concession area was awarded to FLDC. Petitioner prayed that it be
allowed to resume logging operations.
Secretary
Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., of the DENR, declared petitioners TLA as of no more
force and effect and consequently denied the petition for its restoration. It
was ruled that petitioner’s petition was barred by reason of laches, because
petitioner did not file its opposition to the issuance of a TLA to FLDC. In the
decision the Office of the
President, the DENRs order was affirmed. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner’s suspended TLA
is still in force and effect
RULING
No. After suspending
petitioners TLA for mediocre performance in reforestation under an order, the
DENR consequently cancelled the TLA a few years later because of a Presidential
directive imposing a log ban.
It
thus appears that petitioners license had been cancelled way back before its
concession was awarded to FLDC. It
is noteworthy that petitioner admits that at the time of the award to FLDC in
1984 petitioner was no longer operating its concession because of a log ban
although it claims that the suspension of operations was only temporary. As a result of the log ban, the TLA of
petitioner, along with those of other loggers in the region, were cancelled and
petitioner and others were ordered to stop operations.
Petitioner also admits that it received
a telegram sent on August 24, 1983 by Director Cortes of the BFD, directing it
to stop all logging operations to conserve our remaining forests. Now
petitioner did not protest the cancellation of its TLA. Consequently, even if consideration is
given to the fact that a year later, on September 24, 1984, its counsel
protested the grant of the concession to another party (FLDC), this failure of
petitioner to contest first the suspension of its license on June 3, 1983 and later
its cancellation on August 24, 1983 must be deemed fatal to its present action.
Comments
Post a Comment