MATUGUINA V.

CA

In 1973, license was issued to Milagros Matuguina to operate logging businesses under her group
Matuguina Logging Enterprises. MIWPI was established in 1974 with 7 stockholders. Milagros
Matuguina became the majority stockholder later on. Milagros later petitioned to have MLE be
transferred to MIWPI. Pending approval of MLEs petition, Davao Enterprises Corporation filed a
complaint against MLE before the District Forester (Davao) alleging that MLE has encroached upon
the area allotted for DAVENCORs timber concession. The Investigating Committee found MLE guilty
as charged and had recommended the Director to declare that MLE has done so. MLE appealed the
case to the Ministry of Natural Resources. During pendency, Milagrosa withdrew her shares from
MIWPI. Later, MNR Minister Ernesto Maceda found MLE guilty as charged. Pursuant to the finding,
DAVENCOR and Philip Co requested Maceda to order MLE and/or MIWPI to comply with the ruling
to pay the value in pesos of 2352.04 m worth of timbers. The Minister then issued a writ of execution
against MIWPI. MIWPI filed a petition for prohibition before the Davao RTC. The RTC ruled in favor
of MIWPI and has ordered to enjoin the Minister from pursuing the execution of the writ. DAVENCOR
appealed and the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC. MIWPI averred that it is not a party to the
original case (as it was MLE that was sued a separate entity). That the issuance of the order of
execution by the Minister has been made not only without or in excess of his authority but that the
same was issued patently without any factual or legal basis, hence, a gross violation of MIWPIs
constitutional rights under the due process clause.
3

ISSUE: Whether or not MIWPIs right to due process has been violated.

HELD: The SC ruled in favor of MIWPI. Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be
affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case not bound by judgment
rendered by the court. In the same manner an execution can be issued only against a party and not
against one who did not have his day in court. There is no basis for the issuance of the Order of
Execution against the MIWPI. The same was issued without giving MIWPI an opportunity to defend
itself and oppose the request of DAVENCOR for the issuance of a writ of execution against it. In fact,
it does not appear that MIWPI was at all furnished with a copy of DAVENCORs letter requesting for
the Execution of the Ministers decision against it. MIWPI was suddenly made liable upon the order
of execution by the respondent Secretarys expedient conclusions that MLE and MIWPI are one and
the same, apparently on the basis merely of DAVENCORs letter requesting for the Order, and
without hearing or impleading MIWPI. Until the issuance of the Order of execution, MIWPI was not
included or mentioned in the proceedings as having any participation in the encroachment in
DAVENCORs timber concession. This action of the Minister disregards the most basic tenets of due
process and elementary fairness. The liberal atmosphere which pervades the procedure in
administrative proceedings does not empower the presiding officer to make conclusions of fact
before hearing all the parties concerned. (1996 Oct 24