Calo v. Bislig Industries
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Consuelo V. Calo and Bislig Industries, Inc. (Bislig) were lumber concessioners of adjacent forest lands. On October 26, 1961, Bislig filed a complaint for damages against Consuelo V. Calo, Marcos M. Calo, and Flavio Makinano, alleging that the defendants encroached and logged within its forest concession an area of about 42 hectares. Procedural History: Defendant Flavio Makinano filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to state a cause of action due to non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The respondent judge denied this motion. Subsequently, spouses Marcos M. Calo and Consuelo V. Calo also filed a motion to dismiss on similar grounds, adding that a boundary dispute existed and was subject to administrative proceedings. This motion was also denied. Bislig later filed an amended complaint, alleging that Consuelo V. Calo's license was null and void. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, reiterating previous grounds and adding that the validity of a license was an administrative matter beyond the court's power. This motion was also denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to set aside the orders denying their motions to dismiss. They argued that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction because the properties were located in Surigao and Agusan, the case involved the right to possession or cutting of logs (real action), and there was no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or without jurisdiction in denying the motions to dismiss. Whether the action for damages is a real action that should have been filed in the province where the timber concessions are located, or an action in personam that can be filed where the plaintiff resides. Whether the validity of a timber license is a matter exclusively within the competence of the executive department.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the writ of injunction is dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and venue: The Court held that the action filed by Bislig was primarily for recovery of damages suffered due to the alleged illegal logging operations of the petitioners within Bislig's timber concession. The damages claimed arose from the violation of Bislig's right to cut, collect, and remove timber within its licensed area. Therefore, the action was considered an action in personam. An action in personam is a suit against a person, based on a cause of action that is personal in nature, and can be commenced and tried in the province where the defendant or plaintiff resides, at the election of the latter. In this case, Bislig, the plaintiff, had its main office in Manila, making the filing of the case in the Court of First Instance of Manila proper. The Court distinguished this from a real action, which concerns the title to, or possession of, real property and must be filed in the province where the property is situated. On the nature of the action: The Court agreed with the respondents that the recovery of damages in this case constituted a personal action. The core of the complaint was the alleged financial loss incurred by Bislig due to the petitioners' actions, not a dispute over the title or possession of the land itself. While the dispute involved timber concessions, the legal remedy sought was monetary compensation for the alleged wrongful acts. This aligns with the principle that actions for damages, even if they arise from disputes involving real property, are generally considered personal actions if the relief sought is a judgment for money. On the validity of the timber license: While the amended complaint included an allegation that Consuelo V. Calo's license was null and void, the primary basis for the damages claim remained the alleged encroachment and logging. The Court's decision focused on the venue and nature of the action for damages. The issue of the license's validity, though raised, was secondary to the determination of whether the case was properly filed in Manila. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the license itself but implicitly allowed the case to proceed in Manila, suggesting that the court could address issues ancillary to the main claim for damages, even if they touched upon administrative matters, as long as the primary action was personal.
Main Doctrine
An action for damages arising from alleged illegal logging operations within a timber concession is considered an action in personam, which can be commenced and tried in the place where the plaintiff resides or has its principal office, and not necessarily where the real property involved is located.