SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-19432 June 23, 1965

COTABATO TIMBERLAND COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PLARIDEL LUMBER COMPANY, INC., defendant-appellee.

R E S O L U T I O N^*

REYES, J.B.L., J.:chanrobles virtual law library

Appellee Plaridel Lumber Co. Inc., has moved to reconsider our decision of February 26, 1965, on the ground that the damages awarded to appellant Cotabato Timberland Co., Inc. are excessive in that the cost of production of the 551,663.84 board feet that appellee failed to turn over to appellant should be deducted from the export price.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Otherwise, it is claimed, appellant would be unjustly enriched.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The motion is without merit, for the following reasons:

1. The right of way permit issued to Plaridel by the forestry authorities provides for the turnover of the logs cut to Cotabato Timberland Co., Inc., subject to only one condition: that it is ready to receive them. Said permit does not provide for the deduction of the cost of production.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

2. The law expressly frees the offended licensee from any claim (which should include the cost of production) when forest products which have been unlawfully gathered from his licensed area are seized and delivered to him.

Where a license is issued for the taking of forest products and a person other than the licensee unlawfully enters or operates without license in the territory covered thereby and cuts, gathers, or removes any forest products contrary to the terms of said license, or attempts to remove any products so cut or gathered, the same may be seized and delivered to the proper licensee, upon the payment of the regular charges thereon, free from any claim on the part of the offended persons. ... (See. 1837, Rev. Adm. Code) (Emphasis supplied; quoted on p. 8, main decision)

3. There is no evidence on either the cost of the rough production or the cost production of the logs. In fact, the production was but a consequence of Plaridel's road-building.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

4. It would be Plaridel, not Cotabato, that would be unjustly enriched if cost of production, if any, is deducted from the compensatory damages because Plaridel would have built its road to the double prejudice of Cotabato: (a) the invasion of its licensed area; (b) with Cotabato bearing the expenses.

WHEREFORE, the motion to reconsider is denied.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, Regala. Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.
Barrera, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:

^*Editor's Note: See main decision in 13 SCRA 235.