Scribd
Upload
446 views2 pages

Mustang Lumber V. Ca G.R. No. 104988 June 18, 1996: Facts

1) The petitioner, a lumber dealer, was unable to produce documents proving the legitimate source and origin of various kinds of lumber found during an administrative seizure of its lumberyard by DENR officials. 2) The DENR secretary then ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's dealer's permit, filing of criminal charges, and confiscation of trucks and lumber. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that lumber is considered a forest product under the law, and therefore the petitioner could be held liable for illegal logging despite the lower court's ruling that possession of lumber without a permit is not a crime.

Uploaded by

Mitch Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
446 views2 pages

Mustang Lumber V. Ca G.R. No. 104988 June 18, 1996: Facts

1) The petitioner, a lumber dealer, was unable to produce documents proving the legitimate source and origin of various kinds of lumber found during an administrative seizure of its lumberyard by DENR officials. 2) The DENR secretary then ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's dealer's permit, filing of criminal charges, and confiscation of trucks and lumber. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that lumber is considered a forest product under the law, and therefore the petitioner could be held liable for illegal logging despite the lower court's ruling that possession of lumber without a permit is not a crime.

Uploaded by

Mitch Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MUSTANG LUMBER V.

CA
G.R. No. 104988

June 18, 1996

Ponente: Davide, Jr.

FACTS:
A consolidation of three cases. Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in a
lumber dealer registered with the Bureau of Forest Development. Respondents are
DENR Sec. Factoran and Atty. Robles of the Special Actions and Investigations
Division (SAID) of the DENR.
Acting based on an information, the SAID team went to the lumberyard of
petitioner and based on a search warrant, were able to execute an
administrative seizure of different kinds of lumber, to which the petitioner
failed to produce upon demand the documents such as corresponding
certificate of lumber origin and auxiliary invoices which shall prove the
legitimacy of their source and origin. Robles then submitted a memorandum
report to Factoran, ordering the cancellation of petitioners Dealers Permit,
filing of criminal charges, and confiscation of the trucks and lumbers. Lower
court ruled in favor of respondents, stating that possession of lumber without
permit or authority is not a crime.

ISSUE:
W/N a lumber cannot be considered timber and that petitioner should not be held
for illegal logging under Sec. 68 of the Revised Forestry Code. NO.

RATIO:
While PD 705 explicitly provides that timber is included in the term forest
products, the term lumber is found in paragraph (aa) of Section 3 which states that
the latter is a processed log or processed forest raw material. Clearly, the law uses
the word lumber in its plain and common usage, and in the absence of a
legislative intent to the contrary, it shall be interpreted as such. Hence, it is safe to
conclude that the law makes no distinction whether the forest product is processed

or not. Therefore, Judge Teresita Capulong committed grave abuse of discretion in


dismissing the case.

You might also like