04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The DENR regional office is fully aware that the company is doing its best to manage and develop the area by continually planting trees and protecting the area from forest fires and illegalities. No company would ever set fire on its own plantation for obvious reasons. The company observed precautionary measures especially during the time of the El Niño phenomenon. If there have been mistakes and miscommunications in the reports of the DENR field officers, these could have been threshed out by a conference between DENR and the Pagadian Timber Company Inc. The company was not accorded due process before the order of cancellation was issued. The company was not furnished copy of the evaluation and recommendation of the DENR Regional Executive Director of Region IX. Had the company been given the opportunity to contest the findings, evaluation and recommendation of the said office, the result would be otherwise.[16] She appealed for the reconsideration of the Order asking that a re-investigation be conducted to comply with due process. Even as the said letter for reconsideration was not yet acted upon, respondent appealed to the Office of the President (OP). In the Resolution[17] dated January 12, 2000, the OP affirmed the cancellation order based on the results of the actual evaluation and assessment of the DENR team. It ruled that the cancellation of IFMA No. R-9-040 was primarily and specifically governed by Section 26 of Department Administrative Order (DAO) 97-04. Relative to respondent's invocation of due process, the OP held that respondent was afforded the right to be heard when it filed its motion for reconsideration and its subsequent appeal to the OP. The motion for reconsideration filed by respondent of the January 12, 2000 Resolution was denied by the OP in the Resolution[18] dated May 8, 2000. Respondent went up to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of the assailed Order dated June 7, 1999. In its Resolution dated January 17, 2001, the CA issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for, "directing and ordering respondents (petitioner) and/or any other person acting under their command, authority and/or for and in their behalf, to DESIST from implementing the assailed Order of cancellation dated June 7, 1999, and/or taking over the IFMA premises of [respondent], pending the termination of this proceeding." In its Decision[19] dated October 18, 2001, the CA ruled in favor of respondents. In striking down the rulings of the OP and the Order dated June 7, 1999, the CA declared that IFMA No. R-9-040 was a contract that could not be unilaterally cancelled without infringing on the rights of respondent to due process and against impairment of contracts. The appellate court agreed with respondent when the latter argued that it was entitled to the benefits of Sections 35[20] and 36[21] of IFMA No. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/46832 8/16