Philippine Administrative System

INSTRUCTION:Answer the questions clearly and concisely.Your answers should demonstrate your knowledge of Legal Doctrine and for the Quality of your Legal Reasoning.

CASE NO 2

FACTS OF THE CASE

2010 Vicente De Rivera, Jr. was granted by the Bureau of Forestry ("Bureau") a timber license to log over an area of about 300 hectares in Misamis Oriental. This license was renewed annually until 2015, when his application for renewal was rejected by the Bureau.

During De Rivera's period of non-renewal of his timber license, the application for a similar forest concession filed by P&B Enterprises Co., Inc. was processed and subsequently granted by the Bureau. P&B's license covered a forest area of approximately 25,000 hectares, also in Misamis Oriental. Pursuant to the Bureau's rules and regulations, P&B constructed logging roads within the forest area covered by its timber license.

In 2016, De Rivera's application for the renewal of his timber license was granted by the Bureau. However, his license covered a portion of the forest concession area originally granted to P&B Enterprises. Expectedly, P&B lodged a complaint before the Bureau, but such complaint was overruled. Thereafter, P&B appealed the Bureau's decision to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

While the abovementioned appeal was pending, De Rivera continued his logging operations in the disputed forest area. De Rivera also used the private logging roads constructed by P&B Enterprises, prompting the latter to file a complaint before the Director of the Bureau, who initially prohibited De Rivera from using said roads but later revoked such order. Because of this, P&B was compelled to appeal yet again to the Secretary of Agriculture, who ruled that pending the resolution of the dispute between the two parties, De Rivera should not enter and operate within the contested forest area.

Boasting of his political clout (he was friends with the provincial governor) and threatening to use violence, De Rivera continued his logging operations in the disputed area despite being prohibited from doing so by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Consequently, P&B Enterprises filed before the CFI of Manila a complaint for injunction and damages against De Rivera and the Bureau. The CFI issued ex parte a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining De Rivera and his aids from cutting, hauling, shipping, and exporting logs from the forest area covered by the timber license issued in P&B's favor.

De Rivera filed a motion to dismiss, as well as to dissolve the injunction, alleging that P&B failed to exhaust all administrative remedies, given that the Secretary of Agriculture had yet to rule on the appeal filed by P&B. The CFI denied the motion, hence the instant petition.

Issue

Whether the CFI of Manila committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of P&B Enterprises even though the latter had not yet exhausted all its administrative remedies.