Dagudag vs Paderanga

Facts:
Sometime in 2005, forest products were confiscated by the representatives of PNPRMG, DENR and
the Philippine Coast Guard for non-compliance of pertinent documents, and since no one claimed
ownership of the said items for a reasonable time, it was confiscated in favor of the government.
Respondent-judge, in a case for issuance of writ of replevin, instituted by plaintiff Edma, issued and
decided in favor of the plaintiff, for the return of the undocumented forest products. DENR, CENRO
and herein petitioner filed a motion to quash the writ of replevin but was thereafter denied by herein
respondent. The DENR counsel was also lambasted in the courtroom by herein respondent.

Issue(s):
1) Whether or not relevin is a proper remedy where the confiscated items were undocumented
forest products under the custody of the DENR.
2) Whether or not the acts of herein respondent constitutes gross ignorance of the law and
unbecoming of a judge.

Ruling:
1) No, The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws. That since the case is
for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by EO 277 is under the jurisdiction of DENR. That
respondent should have dismissed the replevin suit outright for three reasons, to wit:

That courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies, under the
doctrine of administrative exhaustion;
That also, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction courts cannot take cognizance of the cases
pending before administrative agencies of special competence. That since the undocumented forest
products are in the custody of the DENR, an administrative proceeding may have already been
commenced; and,
That the forest products are already in custody of law and thus cannot be the subject of replevin.
2) Yes, respondent, in taking cognizance of the replevin suit and thereafter issuing the said writ
constitute gross ignorance of the law. Respondent also is liable for using inappropriate language in
court, and repeated interruption of the lawyers and refusal to consider the motion to quash are
undignified and very unbecoming of a judge. Considering also that this is his third offense.