G.R. No. 121587 - SOLEDAD DY, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE RONWOOD LUMBER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ODEL BERNARDO LAUSA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the team set up a check-point along kilometer 4 in Baan, Butuan City. [3] What happened thereafter is summarized in the following portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals: [4] At around 10:00 p.m., two trucks with Plate Nos. KAK-542 and KBL-214 and loaded with lumber approached the checkpoint. They were flagged down by the operatives but instead of stopping, they accelerated their speed hence, the task force gave chase. They finally caught up with the two vehicles at the compound of Young Metalcraft and Peterwood Agro-Forest Industries at Baan, Butuan City, about two kilometers from the checkpoint. When requested by the operatives, Pulcita Lucero, caretaker/in charge of the compound could not produce any document as proof of the legality of the origin/possession of the forest products. Forester Resurreccion Maxilom of the DENR issued a temporary seizure order and a seizure receipt for the two vehicles and their cargo consisting of several pieces of lumber of different sizes and dimensions, but Lucero, the caretaker of the compound where they were seized, refused to accept them. The seized lumber and vehicles were then taken to the City motorpool and placed in the custody of respondent Lausa. The next day, July 2, 1993, Maxilom submitted a memorandum-report to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) of Butuan City on the seizure of the lumber and the two vehicles. [5] On July 6, the CENRO issued a notice of confiscation which was duly posted for three days. For lack of claimants, DENR Regional Technical Director Raoul Geollegue recommended to the Secretary on July 29, 1993 the forfeiture of the lumber and the two vehicles. [6] Accordingly, on July 30, 1993, DENR Regional Director De la Rosa ordered the CENRO of Butuan City to issue the requisite forfeiture orders, [7] which CENRO Angelita Orcasitas issued on August 15, 1993. [8] On October 20, 1993, more than two months after the lumber had been forfeited, petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the lumber, filed a suit for replevin in the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City (Branch 5) for its recovery. The next day, October 21, 1993, the trial court issued a preliminary writ of replevin. On October 29, 1993, respondent Lausa filed a motion for the approval of a counterbond. Before the court could act on his motion, he moved to dismiss and/or quash the writ of replevin on the ground that the lumber in question, having been seized and forfeited by the DENR pursuant to P.D. No. 705, as amended (Revised Forestry Code), was under its custody and, therefore, resort should first be made to the DENR. On November 29, 1993, the trial court denied respondent Lausa's application for the approval of the counterbond as well as his motion to dismiss and/or quash the suit for replevin. For this reason, respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals in which he sought the approval of his counterbond and the nullification of the two orders, dated Octo