7/28/2019 Paat vs CA Case Digest

1/1

Paat vs CA Admin Law Digest

Leonardo PaatvsCourt of Appeals, et. Al.GR No. 111107, 10 January 1997266 SCRA 167FACTS

The truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman was seized by the DENR personnelwhile on its way to Bulacan because the driver could not produce the required documents for theforest product found concealed in the truck. Petitioner Jovito Layugan, CENRO ordered theconfiscation of the truck and required the owner to explain. Private respondents failed to submitrequired explanation. The DENR Regional Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan sustainedLayugans action for confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the truck. Private respondentsbrought the case to the DENR Secretary. Pending appeal, private respondents filed a replevincase before the RTC against petitioner Layugan and Baggayan. RTC granted the same.Petitioners moved to dismiss the case contending, inter alia, that private respondents had no

cause of action for their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied theirmotion. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners aver that the trial court could notlegally entertain the suit for replevin because the truck was under administrative seizureproceedings.ISSUE

Whether or not the instant case falls within the exception of the doctrine.HELD

The Court held in the negative. The Court has consistently held that before a party isallowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of

all the means of administrative processed afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within theadministrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concernedevery opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedyshould be exhausted first before courts judicial power can be sought. The premature invocationof court intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.

The doctrine is a relative one and its flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity anduniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded (1) whenthere is violation of due process, (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question, (3) whenthe administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, (4) whenthere is estoppels on the part of the administrative agency concerned, (5) when there is

irreparable injury, (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter egoof the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter, (7) when to requireexhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable, (8) when it would amount tonullification of a claim, (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings,(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when thereare circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.

A suit for replevin cannot be sustained against the petitioners for the subject truck taken andretained by them for administrative forfeiture proceedings in pursuant to Sections 68-A of OD705, as amended. Dismissal of the replevin suit for lack of cause of action in view of the private

respondents failure to exhaust administrative remedies should have been the proper course ofaction by the lower court instead of assuming jurisdiction over the case and consequently issuingthe writ ordering the return of the truck.