A.

THE LAW ON NATURAL RESOURCES surveyed in their behalf even before the creation of the said
reservation. x x x Even assuming that petitioners did have the said
properties surveyed even before the same was declared to be part of
PART TWO: PUBLIC LANDS the Busol Forest Reservation, the fact remains that it was so
VIII. RESERVATION FOR TOWN SITE & PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC converted into a forest reservation, thus it is with more reason that
USES this action must fail. Forest lands are inalien-

_________________
VOL. 172, APRIL 19, 1989 563
Heirs of Gumangan vs. Court of Appeals *FIRST DIVISION.
564
G.R. No. 75672. April 19, 1989. *

HEIRS OF GUMANGAN, namely: ANTONIA GUMANGAN, 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
BALBINA G. GOMEZ, IRENE KITDUD. LINA TOLAS, Heirs of Gumangan vs. Court of Appeals
MAGDALENA GUMANGAN, PABLO GUMANGAN, and able and possession thereof, no matter how long, cannot convert
the same into private property. And the courts are without
VICTORIA G. AMISTAD petitioners, vs. COURT OF
jurisdiction to adjudicate lands within the forest zone.
APPEALS, DIRECTOR OF LANDS, and DIRECTOR OF
FOREST DEVELOPMENT, respondents. PETITION for review from a decision and resolution of the
G.R. No. 75673. April 19, 1989. *
Court of Appeals.
HEIRS OF MOLINTAS, namely: MAGSIA M. LEUAN,
PULMANO MOLINTAS, SERGIO MOLINTAS, SALINDIA The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
CUYAN, AMADO MOLINTAS, ALMAQUIO MOLINTAS,
NENITA M. RILLERA, JOSEPHINE M. ABANAG, BELEN GANCAYCO, J.:
M. MARANES, WATSON M. MARANES, EDUARDO M.
MARANES and JOHN MOLINTAS, petitioners, vs. COURT Can a part of a forest reservation be titled in a land
OF APPEALS, DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DIRECTOR OF registration proceeding? This is the controversy in this
FOREST DEVELOPMENT, HEIRS OF TIMOTEO petition for review of a decision and resolution of the Court of
LAGASCA, SERA PATNAO, COMAD LIGARO, HEIRS OF Appeals. On October 3, 1975, the Heirs of Gumangan,
ELEN JUAN, and EDUARDO CUYAN, respondents. represented by Victoria G. Amistad, filed with the then Court
Land Titles and Deeds; Public Land Act; Forest of First Instance of Bagiuo (now Regional Trial Court) an
Lands; Inalienable Public Lands; Forest lands are part of the public application for original land registration (Land Registration
domain and are inalienable, hence it is the Dir. of Lands and not the Case No. N-396) covering Lots “C” and “K”, as shown in plan
courts, who has jurisdiction in the disposition of the same.—–Thus, II-13973 (RS-985), with a combined area of 14.3884 hectares
inasmuch as the said properties applied for by petitioners are part (143,884 sq. meters) and both situated in Res. Sec. “D”, City of
of the public domain, it is the Director of Lands who has jurisdiction Baguio.
in the disposition of the same (subject to the approval of the
On November 13, 1975, the Heirs of Molintas, represented
Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment), and not the
by Josephine M. Abanag, also filed with the Court of First
courts. Petitioners nevertheless contend that said properties are
within the Busol Forest Reservation which was established on April Instance of Baguio an application for original land registration
27, 1922 under Proclamation No. 15 and that they had the same (Land Registration Case No. N-400) covering Lots “A-2”, “B”,
and “C”, as shown on plan II-11935, with a total area of On February 15, 1978, the trial court issued an order
23.3253 hectares (233,253 sq. meters) and all of which are dismissing Cases Nos. N-396 and N-400, the dispositive
situated in Res. Sec. “D”, City of Baguio. portion of which reads as follows:
On May 5, 1977, the Director of Lands, represented by the WHEREFORE, finding merit in the present motions to dismiss, the
Solicitor General, filed identical motions to dismiss in Land same are hereby granted and the applications in the three above-
Registration Cases Nos. N-396 and N-400 and several other entitled cases are dismissed, without costs.
land registration cases covering lands within the City of On March 29, 1978, petitioners filed their motions for
Baguio, alleging that the Court of First Instance of Baguio has reconsideration of the dismissal order, anchored on the
no jurisdiction over the said applications inasmuch as the following grounds:
parcels of land applied for have been declared public lands, the
disposition of which is the concern of the Director of Lands 1. a.That the parcels of land covered by LRC-N-396 and
with the prior approval of the Secretary of Natural Resources. LRC-N-400 are included within the boundary lines of
It is also alleged therein that whatever registrable rights Busol Forest Reservation, which reservation was
and/or claims the applicants may have over the subject lands excluded from the proceedings in Civil Reservation
are barred by the Statute of Limitations and by prior judgment Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Record No. 211;
(the Decision 2. b.That the parcels of land subject matter of the said
565 land registration cases are not among those declared
VOL. 172, APRIL 19, 1989 565 as public land in the Decision dated November 13,
Heirs of Gumangan vs. Court of Appeals 1922 in the said reservation proceedings;
dated November 13, 1922 in Civil Reservation Case No. 1, 3. c.That the applicants-petitioners are not barred by the
G.L.R.O. Record No. 211.). said Decision dated November 13, 1922 from applying
Both applicants in LRC-N-396 and LRC-N-400, now for the registration of their titles under Act No. 496, as
petitioners, filed their oppositions to the said motion to amended.
dismiss on the following grounds: the parcels of land applied
566
for cannot be disposed of by the Director of Lands under the
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Public Land Act; that the parcels of land applied for, although
classified as residential, fall under the term “agricultural Heirs of Gumangan vs. Court of Appeals
lands,” hence there is no valid reason to exclude them from the On June 13, 1978, the Director of Lands filed his opposition to
coverage of Section 48 of the Public Land Act; that the the motion for reconsideration, alleging that:
applicants whose predecessors were not served with notices in “x x x the Court of First Instance of Baguio has no jurisdiction over
the parcels of land subjects of land registration cases in question;
Civil Reservation Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Record No. 211, as
and that the claims of the Heirs of Gumangan and the Heirs of
required by Section 3 of Act No. 627, are not barred from Molintas in LRC-396 and LRC-400 have already been settled in
applying for registration of their titles to the lands applied for; previous proceedings.”
that the declaration of the subject lands as public lands in the On April 28, 1981, the trial court issued another order denying
townsite proceedings did not disturb their possessory titles or the motion for reconsideration.
foreclose their right to apply for the benefits under Section 48
of the Public Land Act.
 On June 11, 1981, petitioners filed their notices of appeal 1. Baguio City to conduct a regular hearing of Land
in both LRC-N-396 and LRC-N-400 with the Intermediate Registration Cases Nos. N-396 and N-400 to determine
Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals). if petitioners, by themselves and through their
On May 8, 1985, the Director of Lands, through the Solicitor predecessor have acquired registerable titles to the
General, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging therein lands claimed by them before the establishment of the
as follows—– Busol Reservation on April 27, 1922.”
“On November 29, 1984, the Supreme Court promulgated its
Decision in G.R. Nos. 57112-21, entitled ‘Republic of the On November 6, 1985, petitioners submitted to respondent
Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, petitioner vs. Court of Appeals a memorandum of evidence with
Judge Sinforoso Fangonil, et al., respondents,’ holding that lands documentary exhibits to prove the grounds of their opposition
within the Baguio Townsite reservation may not be the subject of to the motion to dismiss filed by the Director of Lands.
original registration proceedings; that said lots may only be
On January 13, 1986, the Third Civil Cases Division of the
disposed of by the Director of Lands under the townsite provisions
of the Public Land Act’ and that claims for private lands not
Intermediate Appellate Court promulgated its Decision in 1

presented in Civil Reservation Case No. 1 are concluded or barred AC-G.R. CV Nos. 69847 and 69848, the dispositive portion of
forever by the decision in said case.” which reads as follows:
On July 1, 1985, petitioners opposed the motion to dismiss “WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the motion to dismiss
filed by the Director of Lands on the following grounds—– the appeal filed by the Office of the Solicitor General has to be, as it
is hereby, granted, without the necessity of presentation of evidence.
“SO ORDERED.” 2

1. 1.That the lands applied for in Land Registration Case

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was
Nos. N-396 and N-400 are admittedly within the
denied on July 28, 1986. 3

physical boundaries of Busol Forest Reservation,

Hence, these two petitions for certiorari to review the
which is outside the Baguio Townsite, hence the
decision of the respondent appellate court. This Court gave
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City has jurisdiction to
due course to the petition on February 23, 1987. 4

hear the cases;

The petition is devoid of merit.
2. 2.That the parcels of land applied for in Land
Petitioners admit that the property subject of their
Registration Cases Nos. N-396 and N-400, are not
applications are within the Baguio Townsite Reservation that
among those declared public lands in the Decision
was established on April 12, 1912. In a decision in Civil
dated November 13, 1922 in Civil Reservation Case
Reservation Case No. 1 dated November 13, 1922, it was held
No. 1, G.L.R.O. Record No. 211, hence trial of said
that all lands within the Reservation are public lands with the
cases are (sic) not barred by res judicata;
exception of (1) lands reserved specific public uses and (2)
3. 3.That there is a necessity for the Regional Trial Court
lands claimed and
of
_______________
567
VOL. 172, APRIL 19, 1989 567 1 Penned by Associate Justice Floreliana Castro-Bartolome, concurred in by
Heirs of Gumangan vs. Court of Appeals Associate Justices Jorge R. Coquia, Mariano A. Zosa and Bienvenido C.
Ejercito.
2 Pages 29-39, Rollo.
 3Page 40, Rollo. evidence cannot be produced at this time because the court record of
4Page 65, Rollo. Case No. 211 was completely destroyed during the last war.
568
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ________________
Heirs of Gumangan vs. Court of Appeals
Sections 3 and 4, Act No. 627.
adjudicated as private property. It was also held in said case
5

6133 SCRA 513 (1984).

that claims for private lands by all persons not presented for 569
registration within the period fixed in Act No. 627, in relation VOL. 172, APRIL 19, 1989 569
to the first Public Land Law, Act No. 926, are barred forever. 5
Heirs of Gumangan vs. Court of Appeals
Of course petitioners claim lack of notice in the aforesaid xxx xxx xxx
case so that they may not be barred by the former judgment. The period of more than fifty years completely bars the
This issue was squarely disposed of by this Court in a case of applicants from securing relief due to the alleged lack of personal
other applicants similarly situated as petitioners. In Republic notice to their predecessors. The law helps the vigilant but not those
vs. Fangonil, this Court held as follows:
6 who sleep on their rights. ‘For time is a means of destroying
“That 1922 decision established the rule that lots of the Baguio obligations and actions, because time runs against the slothful and
Townsite Reservation, being public domain, are not registerable contemners of their own rights.’”
under Act No. 496. As held by Judge Belmonte in a 1973 case the Thus, inasmuch as the said properties applied for by
Baguio Court of First Instance ‘has no jurisdiction to entertain any petitioners are part of the public domain, it is the Director of
land registration proceedings’ under Act No. 496 and the Public Lands who has jurisdiction in the disposition of the same
Land Law, covering any lot within the Baguio Townsite Reservation (subject to the approval of the Secretary of Natural Resources
which was terminated in 1932 (Camdas vs. Director of Lands, L- and Environment), and not the courts.
37782, Resolution of this Court of March 8, 1974, dismissing petition Petitioners nevertheless contend that said properties are
for review of Judge Belmonte’s ruling).
with-in the Busol Forest Reservation which was established
In the instant cases, after more than half a century from the 1922
decision declaring the townsite public domain, or during the
on April 27, 1922 under Proclamation No. 15 and that they
years 1972 to 1976, Modesta Paris, Lagya Paris, Samuel Baliwan, had the same surveyed in their behalf even before the creation
Pablo Ramos, Jr., Josephine Abanag, Menita T. Victor, Emiliano of the said reservation. They cite the aforestated decision of
Bautista and Odi Dianson filed with the Court of First Instance of November 13, 1922 to the effect:
Baguio applications for the registration of lots (with considerable “x x x, el Juzgado por orden de fecha 7 de Octubre de 1922 ordeno
areas) inside the Baguio Townsite Reservation. que este expediente de reserva sea incluido en el calendario de
xxx xxx xxx sessiones del Tribunal, correspondiente al 27 de Octubre de 1922 se
As already noted, the fact is that the notice in Case No. 211 was celebro esta vista, y en esta dia se ha dado asimismo quenta el
issued on July 22, 1915. The clerk of court certified that 134 persons Juzgado de la mocion presentado por el Fiscal pidendo que sean
living upon or in visible possession of any part of the reservation excluido de este expediente de reserva las sequientes reservas
were personally served with notice of the reservation. Section 3 of forestales, administrades por el Oficina de Monte.”
Act No. 627 provides that the certificate of the clerk of court is xxx xxx xxx
‘conclusive proof of service.’ (Zarate case, pp. 158, 162). “Busol, reserva forestal establicida bajo la Proclama del Governa-
xxx xxx xxx dor General de la Islas Filipinas, No. 15, de fecha 27 de Abril de
We hold that the trial court erred in requiring the presentation 1922.
of evidence as to the notice required under Act No. 627. Such
 “En su virtud, y teniendo en cuenta que se han cumplido todos los 8 The Director of Lands vs. Abanzado, 65 SCRA 5 (1975).
tramites que requiere la ley en los casos de reserva como el que 9 Vaño vs. Government of the Philippine Islands 41 Phil.
161 (1920); Adorable vs. Director of Forestry, 107 Phil. 401 (1960); Director of
tramita, esta Tribunal concluyentemento,
Forestry vs. Muñoz, 23 SCRA 1183 (1968); Republic vs. Animas, 56 SCRA
“ORDENA, ADJUCIA Y DECRETA: 499 (1974); Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177 (1975); and Director of
“(a) Que con excepcion de las referidas reserva forestales tituladas Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 117 SCRA 346 (1982).
‘Forbes Park’, ‘Busol, y ‘The Cave’, cuyos linderos y superficios 10 Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648 (1979).

constan en los planos respectivos; y de los terrenos mencionados en 571

los Expendiente referidos, numerados x x x, decididos y declarados © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
a favor de sus respectivos solicitantes, las parcelas de terrenos
arriba descritas y objecto de esta expediente de reserva, asi como los
intereses o
570
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of Gumangan vs. Court of Appeals
derechos reales comprendidos en dicha reserva, sonterrenos
publicos;” 7

Even assuming that petitioners did have the said properties

surveyed even before the same was declared to be part of the
Busol Forest Reservation, the fact remains that it was so
converted into a forest reservation, thus it is with more reason
that this action must fail. Forest lands are inalienable and 8

possession thereof, no matter how long, cannot convert the

same into private property. And the courts are without
9

jurisdiction to adjudicate lands within the forest zone. 10

WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED for lack of

merit, with costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-
Aquino and Medialdea JJ., concur.
Petitions dismissed.
Note.—–Possession of forestal land cannot ripen into
ownership. (Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA
701.)

——–o0o——–

________________

7 Memorandum of petitioners, page 93, Rollo.

 G.R. No. 180206. February 4, 2009.* City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng
THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO CITY, represented Same; Same; Same; Temporary Restraining Orders; The
by REINALDO BAUTISTA, JR., City Mayor; THE ANTI- National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) may issue
SQUATTING COMMITTEE, represented by ATTY. temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction without any
MELCHOR CARLOS R. RAGANES, CITY BUILDINGS and prohibition against the issuance of the writ when the main action is
ARCHITECTURE office, represented by OSCAR FLORES; for injunction.—As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the
NCIP may issue temporary restraining orders and writs of
and PUBLIC ORDER and SAFETY OFFICE, Represented by
injunction without any prohibition against the issuance of the writ
EMMANUEL REYES, petitioners, vs. ATTY. BRAIN
when the main action is for injunction. The power to issue
MASWENG, Regional Officer-National Commission on temporary restraining orders or writs of injunction allows parties to
Indigenous People-CAR, ELVIN GUMANGAN, NARCISO a dispute over which the NCIP has jurisdiction to seek relief against
BASATAN and LAZARO BAWAS, respondents. any action which may cause them grave or irreparable damage or
Administrative Law; National Commission on Indigenous injury. In this case, the Regional Hearing Officer issued the
Peoples (R.A. No. 8371); Administrative Agencies; The National injunctive writ because its jurisdiction was called upon to protect
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is the primary and preserve the rights of private respondents who are undoubtedly
government agency responsible for the formulation and members of ICCs/IPs.
implementation of policies, plans and programs to protect and Same; Same; Same; No restraining order or preliminary
promote the rights and well-being of indigenous cultural injunction may be issued by any inferior court against the National
communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) in any case, dispute or
their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto; The National controversy arising from or necessary to the interpretation of the
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is vested with Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and other laws
jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the rights of relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.—In order to reinforce
ICCs/IPs.—The NCIP is the primary government agency the powers of the NCIP, the IPRA even provides that no restraining
responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, order or preliminary injunction may be issued by any inferior court
plans and programs to protect and promote the rights and well- against the NCIP in any case, dispute or controversy arising from
being of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples or necessary to the interpretation of the IPRA and other laws
(ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.
their rights thereto. In order to fully effectuate its mandate, the Same; Same; Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (R.A. No.
NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes 8371); The exemption of Baguio City from the Indigenous Peoples
involving the rights of ICCs/IPs. The only condition precedent to the Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) cannot ipso facto be deduced because the
NCIP’s assumption of jurisdiction over such disputes is that the law concedes the validity of prior land rights recognized or acquired
parties thereto shall have exhausted all remedies provided under through any process before its effectivity.—Petitioners argue that
their customary laws and have obtained a certification from the Baguio City is exempt from the provisions of the IPRA, and
Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle necessarily the jurisdiction of the NCIP, by virtue of Sec. 78 thereof,
the dispute that the same has not been resolved. x x x The foregoing provision indeed states that Baguio City is
governed by its own charter. Its exemption from the IPRA, however,
_______________
cannot ipso facto be deduced because the law concedes the validity
* SECOND DIVISION. of prior land rights recognized or acquired through any process
89 before its effectivity. The IPRA demands that the city’s charter
VOL. 578, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 89 respect the validity of these recognized land rights and titles.90
 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 1 Rollo, pp. 30-37; Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Lucas P.
City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng Bersamin.
Same; Same; Same; Proclamation No. 15 does not appear to be 91
a definitive recognition of private respondents’ ancestral land VOL. 578, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 91
claim.—Proclamation No. 15, however, does not appear to be a City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng
definitive recognition of private respondents’ ancestral land claim.
in CA G.R. SP No. 96895, dated April 16, 2007, and its
The proclamation merely identifies the Molintas and Gumangan
families, the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents, as Resolution2dated September 11, 2007, which affirmed the
claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest Reservation but does not injunctive writ issued by the National Commission on
acknowledge vested rights over the same. In fact, Proclamation No. Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) against the demolition orders of
15 explicitly withdraws the Busol Forest Reservation from sale or petitioners.
settlement. The following undisputed facts are culled from the assailed
Same; Same; Same; Busol Forest Reservation was declared by Decision:
the Court as inalienable in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals, “The case stemmed from the three (3) Demolition Orders issued
172 SCRA 563 (1989).—The fact remains, too, that the Busol Forest by the City Mayor of Baguio City, Braulio D. Yaranon, ordering the
Reservation was declared by the Court as inalienable in Heirs of demolition of the illegal structures constructed by Lazaro Bawas,
Gumangan v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 563 (1989). The Alexander Ampaguey, Sr. and a certain Mr. Basatan on a portion of
declaration of the Busol Forest Reservation as such precludes its the Busol Watershed Reservation located at Aurora Hill, Baguio
conversion into private property. Relatedly, the courts are not City, without the required building permits and in violation of
endowed with jurisdictional competence to adjudicate forest lands. Section 69 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, Presidential
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and Decree No. 1096 and Republic Act No. 7279.
resolution of the Court of Appeals. Pursuant thereto, the corresponding demolition advices dated
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. September 19, 2006 were issued informing the occupants thereon of
The City Legal Officer for petitioners. the intended demolition of the erected structures on October 17 to
Alfonso Aroco for respondents. 20, 2006. Consequently, Elvin Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and
Lazaro Bawas (hereinafter private respondents) filed a petition for
TINGA, J.: injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the Office of the
Petitioners, the City Government of Baguio City, City Mayor of Baguio City through its Acting City Mayor, Reynaldo
Bautista, the City Building and Architecture Office, the Anti-
represented by its Mayor, Reinaldo Bautista, Jr., the Anti-
Squatting Task Force, and the Public Order and Safety Division,
Squatting Committee, represented by Atty. Melchor Carlos R.
among others, (collectively called petitioners) before the National
Rabanes; the City Buildings and Architecture Office, Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Cordillera Administrative
represented by Oscar Flores; and the Public Order and Safety Region (NCIP-CAR), Regional Hearing Office, La Trinidad,
Office, represented by Emmanuel Reyes and later substituted Benguet, docketed as Case No. 31-CAR-06.
by Gregorio Deligero, assail the Decision1 of the Court of In their petition, private respondents basically claimed that the
Appeals lands where their residential houses stand are their ancestral lands
which they have been occupying and possessing openly and
_______________ continuously since time immemorial; that their ownership thereof
have been expressly recognized in Proclamation No. 15 dated April
27, 1922 and recommended by the Department of Environment and preliminary injunction only as auxiliary remedies to cases
Natural Resources (DENR) for exclusion from the coverage of the pending before it.
Busol Forest Reserve. They, thus, contended that the demolition of
_______________
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 31-35.
4 CA Rollo, pp. 2-23.
2 Id., at pp. 39-40. 5 Id., at pp. 24-26.
92 6 Id., at pp. 27-33.
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 7 Id., at pp. 34-38.
City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng 93
their residential houses is a violation of their right of possession VOL. 578, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 93
and ownership of ancestral lands accorded by the Constitution and City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng
the law, perforce, must be restrained. Further, the IPRA provides that Baguio City shall be
On October 16 and 19, 2006, Regional Hearing Officer Atty. governed by its Charter. Thus, private respondents cannot
Brain S. Masweng of the NCIP issued the two (2) assailed temporary claim their alleged ancestral lands under the provisions of the
restraining orders (TRO) directing the petitioners and all persons IPRA.
acting for and in their behalf to refrain from enforcing Demolition Petitioners contend that private respondents are not
Advice dated September 18, 2006; Demolition Order dated
entitled to the protection of an injunctive writ because they
September 19, 2006; Demolition Order No. 25, Series of 2004;
Demolition Order No. 33, Series of 2005; and Demolition Order No.
encroached upon the Busol Forest Reservation and built
28, Series of 2004, for a total period of twenty (20) days. structures thereon without the requisite permit. Moreover,
Subsequently, the NCIP issued the other assailed Resolution this Court, in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals,8 had
dated November 10, 2006 granting the private respondents’ already declared that the Busol Forest Reservation is
application for preliminary injunction subject to the posting of an inalienable and possession thereof, no matter how long, cannot
injunctive bond each in the amount of P10,000.00.”3 convert the same into private property. Even assuming that
Acting on the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners,4 the private respondents have a pending application for ancestral
Court of Appeals upheld the jurisdiction of the NCIP over the land claim, their right is at best contingent and cannot come
action filed by private respondents and affirmed the under the protective mantle of injunction.
temporary restraining orders dated October 165 and 19, Petitioners also claim that the Busol Forest Reservation is
2006,6 and the Resolution dated November 10, 2006,7 granting exempt from ancestral claims as it is needed for public welfare.
the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, issued by It is allegedly one of the few remaining forests in Baguio City
the NCIP. The appellate court also ruled that Baguio City is and is the city’s main watershed.
not exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 8371, Finally, petitioners contend that the demolition orders
otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 were issued pursuant to the police power of the local
(IPRA). government.
Petitioners assert that the NCIP has no jurisdiction to hear In their Comment9 dated March 1, 2007, private
and decide main actions for injunction such as the one filed by respondents defend the jurisdiction of the NCIP to take
private respondents. They claim that the NCIP has the cognizance of and decide main actions for injunction arguing
authority to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of that the IPRA does not state that the NCIP may only issue
such writs of injunction as auxiliary remedies. Private programs to protect and promote the rights and well-being of
respondents also contend that the IPRA does not exempt indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples
Baguio City from its coverage nor does it state that there are (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their ancestral domains as
no ancestral lands in Baguio City. well as their rights thereto.12 In order to fully effectuate its
As members of the Ibaloi Indigenous Community native to mandate, the NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims
Baguio City, private respondents are treated as squatters and disputes involving the rights of ICCs/IPs. The only
despite the fact that they hold native title to their ancestral condition precedent to the NCIP’s assumption of jurisdiction
over such disputes is that the parties thereto shall have
_______________
exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws
8 G.R. Nos. 75672 and 75673, April 19, 1989, 172 SCRA 563. and have obtained a
9 Rollo, pp. 186-203.
94 _______________
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 10 CA Rollo, pp. 85-87.
City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng 11 Rollo, pp. 228-233.
land. The IPRA allegedly now recognizes ancestral lands held 12 Rep. Act No. 8371 (1997), Sec. 3(k) and Sec. 38.
95
by native title as never to have been public lands.
Private respondents aver that the Busol Forest Reservation VOL. 578, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 95
is subject to ancestral land claims. In fact, Proclamation No. City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng
1510 dated April 27, 1922, which declared the area a forest certification from the Council of Elders/Leaders who
reserve, allegedly did not nullify the vested rights of private participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same
respondents over their ancestral lands and even identified the has not been resolved.13
claimants of the particular portions within the forest reserve. In addition, NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 dated
This claim of ownership is an exception to the government’s April 9, 2003, known as the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and
contention that the whole area is a forest reservation. Procedure Before the NCIP, reiterates the jurisdiction of the
Lastly, private respondents assert that the power of the city NCIP over claims and disputes involving ancestral lands and
mayor to order the demolition of certain structures is not enumerates the actions that may be brought before the
absolute. Regard should be taken of the fact that private commission. Sec. 5, Rule III thereof provides:
respondents cannot be issued building permits precisely “Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of the NCIP.—The NCIP through its
because they do not have paper titles over their ancestral Regional Hearing Offices shall exercise jurisdiction over all claims
and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs and all cases pertaining to
lands, a requirement for the issuance of a building permit
the implementation, enforcement, and interpretation of R.A. 8371,
under the National Building Code. including but not limited to the following:
Petitioners’ Reply to Comment11 dated June 11, 2008 (1) Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing
merely reiterates their previous arguments. Office (RHO):
We shall first dispose of the elemental issue of the NCIP’s a. Cases involving disputes and controversies over
jurisdiction. ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs;
The NCIP is the primary government agency responsible b. Cases involving violations of the requirement of free
for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and and prior and informed consent of ICCs/IPs;
 c. Actions for enforcement of decisions of ICCs/IPs asserted their possession, occupation and utilization of their
involving violations of customary laws or desecration of ancestral lands. The petition also alleged that private
ceremonial sites, sacred places, or rituals; respondents’ claim over these lands had been recognized by
d. Actions for redemption/reconveyance under Section Proclamation No. 15 which mentions the names of Molintas
8(b) of R.A. 8371; and
and Gumangan as having claims over portions of the Busol
e. Such other cases analogous to the foregoing.
Forest Reservation.15
(2) Original Jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing Officer:
a. Cases affecting property rights, claims of ownership, Clearly then, the allegations in the petition, which
hereditary succession, and settlement of land disputes, axiomatically determine the nature of the action and the
between and among ICCs/IPs that have not been settled under jurisdiction of a particular tribunal,16 squarely qualify it as a
customary laws; and “dispute(s) or controversy(s) over ancestral lands/domains of
b. Actions for damages arising out of any violation of ICCs/IPs” within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Republic Act No. 8371. NCIP-RHO.
_______________ _______________

14 CA Rollo, pp. 78-84.

13 Rep. Act No. 8371 (1997), Sec. 66. 15 Id., at pp. 86-87.
96 16 Abacus Securities Corporation v. Ampil, G.R. No. 160016, February 27,
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 2006, 483 SCRA 315; Ballesteros v. Abion, G.R. No. 143361, February 9, 2006,
City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng 482 SCRA 23.
97
(3) Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction of the Commission:
a. Petition for cancellation of Certificate of Ancestral
VOL. 578, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 97
Domain Titles/Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles (CADTs/ City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng
CALTs) alleged to have been fraudulently acquired by, and The IPRA, furthermore, endows the NCIP with the power
issued to, any person or community as provided for under to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction.
Section 54 of R.A. 8371. Provided that such action is filed Sec. 69 thereof states:
within one (1) year from the date of registration.” “Sec. 69. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NCIP.—The NCIP shall
In order to determine whether the NCIP has jurisdiction have the power and authority:
over the dispute in accordance with the foregoing provisions, a) To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing
it is necessary to resolve, on the basis of the allegations in their and disposition of cases filed before it as well as those pertaining to
petition, whether private respondents are members of its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be
ICCs/IPs. In their petition14 filed before the NCIP, private necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act;
respondents, members of the Ibaloi tribe who first settled in b) To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy,
issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of
Baguio City, were asserting ownership of portions of the Busol
witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts,
Forest Reservation which they claim to be their ancestral records, agreements, and other document of similar nature as may
lands. Correctly denominated as a petition for injunction as it be material to a just determination of the matter under
sought to prevent the enforcement of the demolition orders investigation or hearing conducted in pursuance of this Act;
issued by the City Mayor, the petition traced private c) To hold any person in contempt, directly or indirectly, and
respondents’ ancestry to Molintas and Gumangan and impose appropriate penalties therefor; and
 d) To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any Petitioners argue that Baguio City is exempt from the
case pending before it which, if not restrained forthwith, provisions of the IPRA, and necessarily the jurisdiction of the
may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties NCIP, by virtue of Sec. 78 thereof, which states:
to the case or seriously affect social or economic “SEC. 78. Special Provision.—The City of Baguio shall remain
activity.” [Emphasis supplied] to be governed by its Charter and all lands proclaimed as part of its
NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 echoes the above- townsite reservation shall remain as such until otherwise
quoted provision in Sec. 82, Rule XV, which provides: reclassified by appropriate legislation: Provided, That prior land
“Sec. 82. Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining rights and titles recognized and/or acquired through any
Order.—A writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order may judicial, administrative or other processes before the
be granted by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sections effectivity of this Act shall remain valid: Provided,
59 and 69 of R.A. [No.] 8371 when it is established, on the basis of further, That this provision shall not apply to any territory which
sworn allegations in a petition, that the acts complained of involving becomes part of the City of Baguio after the effectivity of this Act.”
or arising from any case, if not restrained forthwith, may cause [Emphasis supplied]
grave or irreparable damage or injury to any of the parties, or The foregoing provision indeed states that Baguio City is
seriously affect social or economic activity. This power may also be governed by its own charter. Its exemption from the IPRA,
exercised by RHOs in cases pending before them in order to preserve however, cannot ipso facto be deduced because the law
the rights of the parties.”
concedes the validity of prior land rights recognized or
98
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED acquired
City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng _______________
As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the NCIP
may issue temporary restraining orders and writs of 17 Rep. Act No. 8371 (1997), Sec. 70.
99
injunction without any prohibition against the issuance of the
VOL. 578, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 99
writ when the main action is for injunction. The power to issue
temporary restraining orders or writs of injunction allows
City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng
parties to a dispute over which the NCIP has jurisdiction to through any process before its effectivity. The IPRA demands
seek relief against any action which may cause them grave or that the city’s charter respect the validity of these recognized
irreparable damage or injury. In this case, the Regional land rights and titles.
Hearing Officer issued the injunctive writ because its The crucial question to be asked then is whether private
jurisdiction was called upon to protect and preserve the rights respondents’ ancestral land claim was indeed recognized by
of private respondents who are undoubtedly members of Proclamation No. 15, in which case, their right thereto may be
ICCs/IPs. protected by an injunctive writ. After all, before a writ of
Parenthetically, in order to reinforce the powers of the preliminary injunction may be issued, petitioners must show
NCIP, the IPRA even provides that no restraining order or that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts
preliminary injunction may be issued by any inferior court against which injunction is directed are violative of said
against the NCIP in any case, dispute or controversy arising right.18
from or necessary to the interpretation of the IPRA and other Proclamation No. 15, however, does not appear to be a
laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.17 definitive recognition of private respondents’ ancestral land
claim. The proclamation merely identifies the Molintas and
Gumangan families, the predecessors-in-interest of private entitled, Elvin Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and Lazaro
respondents, as claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest Bawas v. Office of the City Mayor of Baguio City, et al. is
Reservation but does not acknowledge vested rights over the DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.
same. In fact, Proclamation No. 15 explicitly withdraws the SO ORDERED.
Busol Forest Reservation from sale or settlement. It provides: Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Velasco,
“Pursuant to the provisions of section eighteen hundred and Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.
twenty-six of Act Numbered Twenty-seven Hundred and eleven[,] I Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set
hereby establish the Busol Forest Reservation to be administered aside.
by the Bureau of Forestry for the purpose of conserving and Note.—The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer
protecting water and timber, the protection of the water supply
for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether
being of primary importance and all other uses of the forest are to
the requisites necessary for the grant of an injunction are
be subordinated to that purpose. I therefore withdraw from sale or
settlement the following described parcels of the public domain present in the case before it. (Manila International Airport
situated in the Township of La Trinidad, City of Baguio, Mountain Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 397 SCRA 348 [2003])
Province, Island of Luzon, to wit:” ——o0o——
The fact remains, too, that the Busol Forest Reservation
was declared by the Court as inalienable in Heirs of
Gumangan v. Court of Appeals.19 The declaration of the Busol © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Forest

_______________

18 Viray v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92481, November 9, 1990, 191 SCRA
308.
19 Supra note 8.
100
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
City Government of Baguio City vs. Masweng
Reservation as such precludes its conversion into private
property. Relatedly, the courts are not endowed with
jurisdictional competence to adjudicate forest lands.
All told, although the NCIP has the authority to issue
temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction, we are
not convinced that private respondents are entitled to the
relief granted by the Commission.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 96895
dated April 16, 2007 and its Resolution dated September 11,
2007 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Case No. 31-CAR-06
 G.R. No. 180882. February 27, 2013.* Act No. 8975, shall suffer the penalty of suspension of at least sixty
THE BAGUIO REGREENING MOVEMENT, INC., (60) days without pay.—Should a judge violate Section 3, Republic
represented by ATTY. ERDOLFO V. BALAJADIA; CITY Act No. 8975 provides the following penalty: Section 6. Penal
ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Sanction.—In addition to any civil and criminal liabilities he or she
may incur under existing laws, any judge who shall issue a
represented by its Officer-in-Charge, Cordelia C. Lacsamana;
temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary
and THE BUSOL FOREST RESERVATION TASK FORCE,
mandatory injunction in violation of Section 3 hereof, shall suffer
represented by its Team Leader, Victor Dictag, the penalty of suspension of at least sixty (60) days without pay.
petitioners, vs. ATTY. BRAIN MASWENG, in his capacity as (Emphasis added.) It is clear from the foregoing provisions that the
Regional Hearing Officer, NCIP-CAR; ELIZABETH MAT-AN, prohibition covers only judges, and does not apply to the NCIP or its
for herself and as representative of the heirs of Rafael; hearing officers. In this respect, Republic Act No. 8975 conforms to
JUDITH MARANES, for herself and as representative of the the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 605 and Presidential Decree
heirs of Molintas; HELEN LUBOS, for herself and as No. 1818, both of which enjoin only the courts.
representative of the heirs of Kalomis; MAGDALENA Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Stare Decisis; Under the
GUMANGAN QUE, for herself and as representative of the doctrine of stare decisis, once a court has laid down a principle of
heirs of Gumangan; Spouses ALEXANDER AMPAGUEY and law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are
LUCIA AMPAGUEY; and Spouses CARMEN PANAYO and
substantially the same.—While res judicata does not apply on
MELANIO PANAYO, respondents.
account of the different subject matters of the case at bar and G.R.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION. No. 180206 (they assail different writs of injunction, albeit issued
110 by the same hearing officer), we are constrained by the principle
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of stare decisis to grant the instant petition. The Court explained
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng the principle of stare decisis in Ting v. Velez-Ting, 582 SCRA 694
(2009): The principle of stare
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Prohibition; Government 111
Infrastructure Projects; The governing law as regards the VOL. 692, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 111
prohibition to issue restraining orders and injunctions against
government infrastructure projects is Republic Act No. 8975, which
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
modified Presidential Decree No. 1818.—The governing law as decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules
regards the prohibition to issue restraining orders and injunctions established by this Court in its final decisions. It is based on the
against government infrastructure projects is Republic Act No. principle that once a question of law has been examined and
8975, which modified Presidential Decree No. 1818, the law cited by decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.
the parties, upon its effectivity on November 26, 2000. Section 9 of Basically, it is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issues,
Republic Act No. 8975 provides: Section 9. Repealing Clause.—All necessary for two simple reasons: economy and stability. In our
laws, decrees, including Presidential Decree Nos. 605, 1818 and jurisdiction, the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil
Republic Act No. 7160, as amended, orders, rules and regulations or Code. (Citations omitted.) We have also previously held that
parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or “[u]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, once a court has laid down a
amended accordingly. principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere
Administrative Law; Judges; Penalties; Any judge who shall to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are
issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or substantially the same.”
preliminary mandatory injunction in violation of Section 3, Republic
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and properties now known as the Busol Watershed Reservation
resolution of the Court of Appeals. was allegedly expressly recognized in Proclamation No. 15
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. issued by Governor General Leonard Wood. As owners of said
Melchor Carlos R. Rabanes for petitioners. properties, their ancestors paid the realty taxes thereon. The
The Law Firm of Avila, Reyes, Licnachan, Maceda, Lim, fencing project of petitioners would allegedly impede their
Arevalo & Libiran for respondents. access to and from their residences, farmlands and water
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: sources, and dispossess them of their yard where tribal rituals
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of and ceremonies are usually held.
the Revised Rule on Civil Procedure assailing the Decision1 of On October 21, 2002, NCIP Regional Hearing Officer Brain
the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. S. Masweng issued a TRO, the dispositive portion of which
78570 insofar as it affirmed the issuances of National reads:
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Hearing Officer WHEREFORE, finding the petition in order and that grave
Brain Masweng, and the Resolution of the same court dated injustice may result should the acts complained of be not
December 11, 2007 denying petitioners’ Motion for Partial immediately restrained, a Temporary Restraining Order is hereby
Reconsideration. issued pursuant to Section 69 (d) of R.A. 8371, ordering the
respondents namely, the Baguio District Engineer’s Office,
Herein private respondents Elizabeth Mat-an, Judith
represented by Engineer Nestor M. Nicolas, the Project Contractor,
Maranes, Helen Lubos, Magdalena Gumangan Que, spouses
Mr. Pel-ey, the Baguio Regreening Movement Inc., represented by
Alexander and Lucia Ampaguey, and spouses Melanio and Atty. Erdolfo V. Balajadia, the Busol Task Force, represented by its
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 48-63; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz with
Team Leader, Moises G. Anipew, the Baguio City Architect and
Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Normandie B. Pizarro, Parks Superintendent Office, represented by Arch. Ignacio
concurring. Estipona, and all persons acting for and their behalf (sic) of the
112 respondents[,] their agents and/or persons whomever acting for and
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED their behalf (sic), to refrain, stop, cease and desist from fencing
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng and/or constructing fences around
113
Carmen Panayo, claiming that their parents inherited from
VOL. 692, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 113
their ancestors several parcels of land in what is now known
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
as the Busol Watershed Reservation, filed before the NCIP a
and between the areas and premises of petitioners, ancestral land
Petition for Injunction, with an application for a Temporary
claims, specifically identified in Proclamation No. 15 as Lot “A” with
Restraining Order (TRO), and thereafter a Writ of Preliminary an area of 143,190 square meters, included within the boundary
Injunction seeking to enjoin the Baguio District Engineer’s lines, Lot “B” 77,855 square meters, included within the boundary
Office, the Office of the City Architect and Parks lines, Lot “C” 121,115 square meters, included within the boundary
Superintendent, and petitioners The Baguio Regreening lines, Lot “D” 33,839 square meters, included within the boundary
Movement, Inc. and the Busol Task Force from fencing the lines, Lot “E” 87,903 square meters, included within the boundary
Busol Watershed Reservation. lines, Lot “F” 39,487 square meters, included within the boundary
In their Petition before the NCIP, private respondents lines, Lot “G” 11,620 square meters, included within the boundary
claim that they are members of the Ibaloi and Kankanaey lines, Lot “H” 17,453 square meters, included within the boundary
tribes of Baguio City. Their ancestors’ ownership of the lines, Lot “J” 40,000 square meters, included within the boundary
lines, all described and embraced under Proclamation No. 15, the surveyed for Emily Kalomis; that land covered by survey plan II-
land embraced and described under the approved plan No. 12064 of 11935 Amd, 1916, surveyed for Molintas; and that land covered by
the then Director of Lands, containing an area of 186, square meters Survey Plan No. AP 7489, March 1916, surveyed for the heirs of
surveyed for Gumangan, the land covered by LRC PSD 52910, Rafael.
containing an area of 77,849 square meters as surveyed for Emily The writ of preliminary injunction shall be effective and shall be
Kalomis, that land covered by survey plan 11935 Amd, containing enforced only upon petitioners’ compliance with the required
an area of 263153 square meters as surveyed for Molintas, and that injunctive bond of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) each in
land covered by AP-7489, containing an area of 155084 as surveyed compliance with Section 3, R.A. 8975.3
for the heirs of Rafael. Atty. Masweng ruled that the NCIP has jurisdiction over
This Restraining Order shall be effective for a period of twenty all claims and disputes involving rights of Indigenous Cultural
(20) days from receipt hereof. Communities (ICCs) and Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and, in the
Meantime, the respondents are further ordered to show cause on exercise of its jurisdiction, may issue injunctive writs.
November 5, 2002 (Tuesday) at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, why
According to Atty. Masweng, the allegations in the verified
petitioners’ prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
petition show that private respondents invoked the provisions
injunction should not be granted.2
of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous
On November 6, 2002, Atty. Masweng denied petitioners’
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), when they sought to enjoin
motion to dissolve the TRO, explaining that a TRO may be
petitioners from fencing their ancestral lands within the Busol
issued motu proprio where the matter is of extreme urgency
Watershed Reservation. Petitioners’ fencing project violated
and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable
Section 58 of the IPRA, which requires the prior written
injury. He further stated that petitioners failed to comply with
consent of the affected ICCs/IPs. The NCIP therefore has
the procedure laid down in Section 6, Rule 58 of the Rules of
authority to hear the petition filed by private respondents and
Court.
to issue the injunctive writ. As regards petitioners’ contention
On November 12, 2002, Atty. Masweng issued an Order,
that the issuance of the TRO violated Presidential Decree No.
the dispositive portion of which states: _______________
_______________
3 CA Rollo, pp. 38-39.
2 Id., at p. 93.
115
114
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 692, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 115
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
WHEREFORE, a writ of preliminary injunction is hereby issued 1818, Atty. Masweng applied the Decision of this Court
against the respondents, their agents, or persons acting for and in in Malaga v. Penachos, Jr.,4 and held that:
their behalves (sic), ordering them to refrain, cease and desist from [R]espondent’s project of fencing the Busol Watershed is not in the
implementing their fencing project during the pendancy (sic) of the exercise of administrative discretion involving a very technical
above-entitled case in any portion of petitioners’ ancestral land matter. This is so since the implementation of the fencing project
claims within the Busol Watershed Reservation. The lands being would traverse along lands occupied by people who claim that they
identified under Proclamation No. 15 as lot[s] ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’, have a legal right over their lands. The fence would actually cut
‘G’, ‘H’, and ‘J’, including the lands covered by Petitioners’ approved across, divide, or segregate lands occupied by people. The effect of it
survey plans as follows: that land identified and plotted under would fence in and fence out property claims. In this case,
Survey Plan No. B.L. FILE No. II-11836, September, 1916 surveyed petitioners invoke their constitutional rights to be protected against
for Gumangan; that land covered by PSD-52910, May, 1921, deprivation of property without due process of law and of taking
private property without just compensation. Such situations involve 7 Section 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains.—The rights of ownership and
pure question of law.5 possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and
protected. Such rights shall include:
As regards the invocation of res judicata by petitioners, xxxx
Atty. Masweng held that they failed to present copies of the b) Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources.—Subject to Section 56
Decisions supposedly rendered by the Regional Trial Court hereof, right to develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally
and the Supreme Court. occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve natural resources within the
territories and uphold the responsibilities for future generations; to benefit and
On November 29, 2002, petitioners filed a Motion for share the profits from allocation and utilization of the natural resources found
Reconsideration of the above Order. On June 20, 2003, Atty. therein; the right to negotiate the terms and conditions for the exploration of
Masweng denied said Motion on the ground that the same was natural resources in the areas for the purpose of ensuring ecological,
filed out of time. environmental protection and the conservation measures, pursuant to national
and customary laws; the right to an informed and intelligent participation in
Petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition the formulation and implementation of any project, government or private,
for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of that will affect or impact upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and
Atty. Masweng in issuing the TRO and the writ of preliminary fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of the
project; and the right to effective measures by the government to prevent any
injunction.
interference with, alienation and encroachment upon these rights;
On April 30, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered its c) Right to Stay in the Territories.—The right to stay in the territory and
Decision dismissing petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari. The not to be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free
dispositive portion of the Decision is as follows: and prior informed consent, nor through any means other than eminent
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition domain. Where relocation is considered necessary as an exceptional measure,
such relocation shall take place only with the free and prior informed consent
is DISMISSED and the assailed orders of public of the ICCs/IPs concerned and whenever possible, they shall be guaranteed the
respondent AFFIRMED. Nevertheless, private respondents are right to return to their ancestral domains, as soon as the grounds for
hereby enjoined 117
_______________ VOL. 692, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 117
4 G.R. No. 86695, September 3, 1992, 213 SCRA 516.
5 CA Rollo, p. 35. The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
116 over the dispute pursuant to Section 66. The Court of Appeals
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED also upheld the conclusion of Atty. Masweng that the NCIP
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng can issue injunctive writs as a principal relief against acts
from (i) introducing constructions at the Busol Watershed and adversely affecting or infringing on the rights of ICCs or IPs,
Forest Reservation and (ii) engaging in activities that degrade the because “(t)o rule otherwise would render NCIP inutile in
resources therein until viable measures or programs for the preventing acts committed in violation of the IPRA.”8
maintenance, preservation and development of said reservation are
As regards petitioners’ allegations that government
adopted pursuant to Sec. 58 of Rep. Act No. 8371.6
reservations such as the subject Busol Watershed cannot be
The Court of Appeals ruled that since the petition before
the subject of ancestral domain claims, the Court of Appeals
the NCIP involves the protection of private respondents’ rights
pointed out that Section 589 of the IPRA in fact mandates the
to their ancestral domains in accordance with Section 7(b), (c) _______________
and (g)7 of the IPRA, the NCIP clearly has jurisdiction relocation cease to exist. When such return is not possible, as determined
_______________ by agreement or through appropriate procedures, ICCs/IPs shall be provided
6 Rollo, p. 62. in all possible cases with lands of quality and legal status at least equal to that
of the land previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present
needs and future development. Persons thus relocated shall likewise be fully reservation are adopted pursuant to the aforementioned
compensated for any resulting loss or injury;
Section 58 of the IPRA.
xxxx
g) Right to Claim Parts of Reservations.—The right to claim parts of the Hence, the present Petition for Review wherein petitioners
ancestral domains which have been reserved for various purposes, except those assert the following grounds:
reserved and intended for common and public welfare and service[.] 1. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND PATENTLY
8 Rollo, p. 59. ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE NCIP’S ISSUANCE OF A
9 Section 58. Environmental Considerations.—Ancestral domains or
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND WRIT OF
portions thereof, which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds,
mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover, or PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DESPITE CLEAR AND PATENT
reforestation as determined by appropriate agencies with the full participation VIOLATION OF P.D. 1818, SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO.
of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be maintained, managed and developed for 68-94 AND SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR
such purposes. The ICCs/IPs concerned shall be given the responsibility to NO. 11-2000;
maintain, develop, protect and conserve such areas with the full and effective 2. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND PATENTLY
assistance of government agencies. Should the ICCs/IPs decide to transfer the
ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ACT OF THE NCIP IN ISSUING A
responsibility over the areas, said decision must be made in writing. The
consent of the ICCs/IPs should be arrived at in accordance with its customary 20-DAYS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER EX
laws without prejudice to the basic requirements of existing laws on free and PARTE SANS THE MANDATORY NOTICE AND HEARING FOR
prior informed consent: Provided, That the transfer shall be temporary and THE ISSUANCE THEREOF;
will ultimately revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a program for _______________
technology transfer: Provided, further, That no ICCs/IPs shall be displaced or relocated for
118 the purpose enumerated under this section without the written consent of the
specific persons authorized to give consent.
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 10 Rollo, p. 61.
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng 119
full participation of ICCs/IPs in the maintenance, VOL. 692, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 119
management, and development of ancestral domains or The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
portions thereof that are necessary for critical watersheds. 3. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND PATENTLY
The IPRA, thus, gives the ICCs/IPs responsibility to maintain, ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE NCIP’S ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
develop, protect, and conserve such areas with the full and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DESPITE ABSOLUTE ABSENCE
effective assistance of government agencies.10 OF CLEAR, UNMISTAKABLE AND POSIT[I]VE LEGAL RIGHTS
Despite ruling in favor of private respondents, the Court of ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANTS;
4. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND PATENTLY
Appeals nevertheless found merit in petitioners’ own
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NCIP HEARING OFFICER
application for injunction and observed that certain activities
HAS JURISDICTION OVER A CASE OF INJUNCTION
by private respondents without regard for environmental INVOLVING A GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT;
considerations could result in irreparable damage to the 5. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY AND GRAVELY
watershed and the ecosystem. Thus, the Court of Appeals ERRED IN BRUSHING ASIDE SECTION 78, A SPECIAL
enjoined private respondents from introducing constructions PROVISION OF REPUBLIC ACT 8371 WHICH EXCLUDES THE
at the Busol Watershed and from engaging in activities that CITY OF BAGUIO FROM THE COVERAGE OF ANCESTRAL
degrade its resources, until viable measures or programs for LAND CLAIMS APPLICATIONS;
the maintenance, preservation and development of said 6. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND PATENTLY
ERRED IN UPHOLDING RULE XIII OF THE IMPLEMENTING
RULES OF REPUBLIC ACT 8371, EVEN IF THE PROVISIONS
OF SAID RULE XIII CLEARLY OVERSTEPPED AND (a) Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of-way
EXCEEDED SECTION 78 OF R.A. 8371.11 and/or site or location of any national government project;
TRO and Preliminary Injunction against Government (b) Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the national
Infrastructure Projects government as defined under Section 2 hereof;
The governing law as regards the prohibition to issue (c) Commencement, prosecution, execution, implementation,
restraining orders and injunctions against government operation of any such contract or project;
(d) Termination or rescission of any such contract/project; and
infrastructure projects is Republic Act No. 8975,12 which
(e) The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful
modified Presidential Decree No. 1818, the law cited by the
activity necessary for such contract/project.
parties, upon its effectivity on November 26, 2000.13 Section 9 This prohibition shall apply to all cases, disputes or controversies
of Republic Act No. 8975 provides: instituted by a private party, including but not limited to cases filed
_______________
by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders
11 Id., at pp. 20-21.
12 AN ACT TO ENSURE THE EXPEDITIOUS IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLETION involving such contract/project. This prohibition shall not apply
OF GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS BY PROHIBITING LOWER COURTS when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional
FROM ISSUING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS OR issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued,
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS _______________
THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Republic Act No. 8975 was published
13 Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8975 provides that the Act shall take in Malaya and the Manila Bulletin on November 11, 2000.
effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in at least 14 532 Phil. 296, 302; 500 SCRA 589, 596 (2006).
120 121
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 692, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 121
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
Section 9. Repealing Clause.—All laws, decrees, including grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall
Presidential Decree Nos. 605, 1818 and Republic Act No. 7160, as file a bond, in an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond shall
amended, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent accrue in favor of the government if the court should finally decide
with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.
Thus, in GV Diversified International, Incorporated v. If after due hearing the court finds that the award of the contract
is null and void, the court may, if appropriate under the
Court of Appeals,14 we ruled that Presidential Decree No. 1818
circumstances, award the contract to the qualified and winning
have been effectively superseded by Republic Act No. 8975.
bidder or order a rebidding of the same, without prejudice to any
The prohibition is thus now delineated in Section 3 of said liability that the guilty party may incur under the existing laws.
latter law, which provides: (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Should a judge violate the preceding section, Republic Act
Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions and Preliminary
No. 8975 provides the following penalty:
Mandatory Injunctions.—No court, except the Supreme Court,
Section 6. Penal Sanction.—In addition to any civil and
shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction
criminal liabilities he or she may incur under existing laws, any
or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or
judge who shall issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary
any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether
injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in violation of
public or private, acting under the government’s direction, to
Section 3 hereof, shall suffer the penalty of suspension of at least
restrain, prohibit or compel the following acts:
sixty (60) days without pay. (Emphasis added.)
 It is clear from the foregoing provisions that the prohibition This Court then upheld the jurisdiction of the NCIP on the
covers only judges, and does not apply to the NCIP or its basis of the allegations in private respondents’ Petition for
hearing officers. In this respect, Republic Act No. 8975 Injunction. It was similarly claimed in said Petition for
conforms to the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 60515 and Injunction that private respondents were descendants of
Presidential Decree No. 1818,16 both of which enjoin only the Molintas and Gumangan whose claims over the portions of the
_______________ Busol Watershed Reservation had been recognized by
15 Section 1. No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue
Proclamation No. 15. This Court thus ruled in G.R. No. 180206
any restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory
injunction in any case involving or growing out of the issuance, approval or that the nature of the action clearly qualify it as a dispute or
disapproval, revocation or suspension of, or any action whatsoever by the _______________
proper administrative official or body on concessions, licenses, permits, other natural resource development projects of the government, or any
patents, or public grants of any kind in connection with the disposition, public utility operated by the government, including among others public
exploitation, utilization, exploration and/or development of the natural utilities for the transport of the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre
resources of the Philippines. contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or governmental official
16 Section 1. No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue from proceeding with, or continuing the execution or implementation of any
any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory such project, or the operation of such public utility, or pursuing any lawful
injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy involving an infrastructure activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.
project, or a mining, fishery, forest or 123
122 VOL. 692, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 123
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng controversy over ancestral lands/domains of the ICCs/IPs.17 On
courts. Accordingly, we cannot nullify the assailed Orders on the basis of Section 69(d)18 of the IPRA and Section 82, Rule
the ground of violation of said laws. XV19 of NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03, the NCIP may
The Court’s Previous Decision in issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction
G.R. No. 180206 without any prohibition against the issuance of the writ when
On February 4, 2009, this Court promulgated its Decision the main action is for injunction.20
in G.R. No. 180206, a suit which involved several of the parties On petitioners’ argument that the City of Baguio is exempt
in the case at bar. In G.R. No. 180206, the City Mayor of from the provisions of the IPRA and, consequently, the
Baguio City issued three Demolition Orders with respect to jurisdiction of the NCIP, this Court ruled in G.R. No. 180206
allegedly illegal structures constructed by private respondents that said exemption cannot ipso facto be deduced from Section
therein on a portion of the Busol Forest Reservation. Private 7821
respondents filed a Petition for Injunction with the NCIP. _______________
17 City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng, G.R. No. 180206, February
Atty. Masweng issued two temporary restraining orders
4, 2009, 578 SCRA 88, 96.
directing the City Government of Baguio to refrain from 18 Section 69. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NCIP.—The NCIP shall
enforcing said Demolition Orders and subsequently granted have the power and authority:
private respondents’ application for a preliminary injunction. xxxx
d) To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending
The Court of Appeals, acting on petitioners’ Petition
before it which, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable
for Certiorari, affirmed the temporary restraining orders and damage to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect social or economic
the writ of preliminary injunction. activity.
 19 Section 82. Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining with respect to the writ of injunction against the fencing of the
Order.—A writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may
Busol Watershed Reservation. The same legal issues are thus
be granted by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sections 59 and
69 of R.A. 8371 when it is established, on the basis of sworn allegations in a being litigated in G.R. No. 180206 and in the case at bar,
petition, that the acts complained of involving or arising from any case, if not except that different writs of injunction are being assailed. In
restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to any both cases, petitioners claim (1) that Atty. Masweng is
of the parties, or seriously affect social or economic activity. This power may
also be exercised by RHOs in cases pending before them in order to preserve
prohibited from issuing temporary restraining orders and
the rights of the parties. writs of preliminary injunction against government
20 City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng, supra note 17 at pp. 97-98. infrastructure projects; (2) that Baguio City is beyond the
21 Section 78. Special Provision.—The City of Baguio shall remain to be ambit of the IPRA; and (3) that private respondents have not
governed by its Charter and all lands proclaimed as part of its townsite
reservation shall remain as such until otherwise reclassified by appropriate
shown a clear right to be protected. Private respondents, on
legislation: Provided, That prior land rights and titles recognized and/or the other hand, presented the same allegations in their
acquired through any judicial, administrative or other processes before the Petition for Injunction,
effectivity of this Act shall remain valid: Provided, further, That this provision _______________
shall not apply to any territory which becomes part of the City of Baguio after the
124 effectivity of this Act.
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 22 City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng, supra note 17 at pp. 98-99.
23 Id., at p. 100.
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng 24 Id., at pp. 99-100.
of the IPRA because the law concedes the validity of prior land 125
rights recognized or acquired through any process before its VOL. 692, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 125
effectivity.22 The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
Lastly, however, this Court ruled that although the NCIP particularly the alleged recognition made under Proclamation
has the authority to issue temporary restraining orders and No. 15 in favor of their ancestors. While res judicata does not
writs of injunction, it was not convinced that private apply on account of the different subject matters of the case at
respondents were entitled to the relief granted by the bar and G.R. No. 180206 (they assail different writs of
Commission.23 Proclamation No. 15 does not appear to be a injunction, albeit issued by the same hearing officer), we are
definitive recognition of private respondents’ ancestral land constrained by the principle of stare decisis to grant the
claim, as it merely identifies the Molintas and Gumangan instant petition. The Court explained the principle of stare
families as claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest decisis25 in Ting v. Velez-Ting:26
Reservation, but does not acknowledge vested rights over the The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts
same.24 Since it is required before the issuance of a writ of to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final decisions. It
preliminary injunction that claimants show the existence of a is based on the principle that once a question of law has been
right to be protected, this Court, in G.R. No. 180206, examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to
ultimately granted the petition of the City Government of further argument. Basically, it is a bar to any attempt to relitigate
Baguio and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued the same issues, necessary for two simple reasons: economy and
therein. stability. In our jurisdiction, the principle 1s entrenched in Article
In the case at bar, petitioners and private respondents 8 of the Civil Code. (Citations omitted.)
present the very same arguments and counter-arguments We have also previously held that “[u]nder the doctrine
of stare decisis, once a court has laid down a principle of law
as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that Notes.—Republic Act No. 8974 covers expropriation
principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are proceedings intended for national government infrastructure
substantially the same.”27 projects. (National Power Corporation vs. Co, 578 SCRA 234
However, even though the principal action in the case at [2009])
bar is denominated as a petition for injunction, the relief The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial
prayed for and granted by the NCIP partakes of the nature of precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule
a preliminary injunction in the sense that its effectivity would established in a decision of its Supreme Court. (Government
cease the moment the NCIP issues its decision in an Service Insurance System [GSIS] vs. Buenviaje-Carreon, 678
appropriate action. The conclusions of this Court in both the SCRA 259 [2012])
case at bar and that in G.R. No. 180206 as regards private ——o0o——
respondents’ ancestral land claim should therefore be © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
considered provisional, as they are based merely on the
allegations in the
_______________
25 Stare decisis et non quieta movere (Stand by the decision and disturb not
what is settled).
26 G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 694, 704-705.
27 Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130088,
April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 63, 79.
126
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs. Masweng
complaint or petition and not on evidence adduced in a full-
blown proceeding on the merits by the proper tribunal. Private
respondents are therefore not barred from proving their
alleged ancestral domain claim in the appropriate proceeding,
despite the denial of the temporary injunctive relief prayed
for.
WHEREFORE, the present Petition for Review
on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78570
dated April 30, 2007 and December 11, 2007, respectively, are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (C.J., Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama,
Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set
aside.
 disregard and defiance of this Court’s ruling on a matter submitted
G.R. No. 188913. February 19, 2014.* for the second time before his office cannot be countenanced. By
CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO, herein represented by acting in opposition to this Court’s authority and disregarding its
CITY MAYOR REINALDO A. BAUTISTA, JR., petitioner, vs. final determination of the legal issue pending before him,
respondent failed in his duty not to impede the due administration
ATTY. BRAIN S. MASWENG, respondent.
of justice and consistently adhere to existing laws and principles as
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Contempt; Words and
interpreted in the decisions of the Court.
Phrases; Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the Court
Same; Same; Same; Indirect Contempt; Penalties; Section 7,
by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity.—
Rule 71 of the Rules provides the penalty for indirect contempt.—
Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the Court by acting
Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules provides the penalty for indirect
in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only
a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders, but such contempt. Section 7 of Rule 71 reads: SEC. 7. Punishment for
conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the indirect contempt.—If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect
administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of
the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is a defiance of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not
the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six
to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect (6) months, or both.
or to interfere with or prejudice party litigants or their witnesses SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Contempt.
during litigation. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Same; Same; Same; The power to punish for contempt is City Legal Office for petitioner.
inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in Mangallay-Dampac and Partners Law Office for
judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders,
respondent.
and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due
administration of justice.—The power to punish for contempt is
inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, Before this Court is a petition for contempt[1] against
and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due respondent Atty. Brain S. Masweng who issued the following
administration of justice. Only in cases of clear and contumacious orders in his capacity as the Regional Hearing Officer of the
refusal to obey should the power be exercised, however, such power, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Cordillera
being drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR):
to unless necessary in the interest of justice. The court must exercise _______________
the power of contempt judiciously and sparingly, with utmost self- [1] Rollo, pp. 3-12.
restraint, with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction 97
and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or (1) 72-Hour Temporary Restraining Order[2] dated July 27,
vindication. 2009, Order[3] dated July 31, 2009 and Writ of
_______________ Preliminary Injunction[4] in NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09
* FIRST DIVISION.
and
96
Same; Same; Same; Respondent’s willful disregard and (2) 72-Hour Temporary Restraining Order[5] dated July 27,
defiance of this Court’s ruling on a matter submitted for the second 2009, Order[6] dated July 31, 2009 and Writ of
time before his office cannot be countenanced.—Respondent’s willful Preliminary Injunction[7] in NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09.
 The factual antecedents: Architecture Office, and Public Order and Safety Office. The
Petitioner City Government of Baguio, through its then case was docketed as NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-06.
Mayor, issued Demolition Order No. 33, Series of 2005 and On October 16 and 19, 2006, herein respondent, Atty. Brain
Demolition Order Nos. 25 and 28, Series of 2004, ordering the Masweng, the Regional Hearing Officer of the NCIP-CAR,
demolition of illegal structures that had been constructed on a issued two temporary restraining orders directing petitioner
portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation located at Aurora and all persons acting in its behalf from enforcing the
Hill, Baguio City, without the required building permits and demolition orders and demolition advices for a total period of
in violation of Section 69[8] of the Revised Forestry Code, as 20 days. Subsequently, the NCIP-CAR, through respondent,
_______________ granted the application for preliminary injunction.
[2] Annex “4,” id., at pp. 74-76. _______________
[3] Annex “6,” id., at pp. 85-97. not less than two (2) nor more than (4) years and a fine equal to eight (8) times
[4] Annex “A,” id., at pp. 132-133. the regular forest charges due on the forest products destroyed, without
[5] Annex “7,” id., at pp. 98-100. prejudice to the payment of the full cost of restoration of the occupied area as
[6] Annex “8,” id., at pp. 101-113. determined by the Bureau.
[7] Annex “D,” id., at pp. 149-150.
The Court shall further order the eviction of the offender from the land and
[8] Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, Section 69. Unlawful occupation or
the forfeiture to the Government of all improvements made and all vehicles,
destruction of forest lands.—Any person who enters and occupies or possesses,
domestic animals and equipment of any kind used in the commission of the
or makes kaingin for his own private use or for others any forest land without
offense. If not suitable for use by the Bureau, said vehicles shall be sold at
authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, or in any manner
public auction, the proceeds of which shall accrue to the Development Fund of
destroys such forest land or part thereof, or causes any damage to the timber
the Bureau.
stand and other products and forest growths found therein, or who assists, aids
or abets any other person to do so, or sets a fire, or negligently permits a fire In case the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in
to be set in any forest land shall, upon conviction, be fined in an amount of not addition to the above penalties, be deemed automatically dismissed from office
less than five hundred pesos (P500.00) nor more than twenty thousand pesos and permanently disqualified from holding any elective or appointive position.
(P20,000.00) and imprisoned for not less than six (6) months nor more than [9] P.D. No. 1096.
two (2) years for each such offense, and be liable to the payment of ten (10) [10] Republic Act No. 7279.
times the rental fees and other charges which would have been accrued had 99
the occupation and use of the land been authorized under a license agreement, On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
lease, license or permit: Provided, That in the case of an offender found guilty injunctive writ issued by the NCIP-CAR against the
of making kaingin, the penalty shall be imprisoned for demolition orders. The case was then elevated to this Court
98amended, the National Building Code[9] and the Urban in G.R. No. 180206 entitled, “City Government of Baguio City
Development and Housing Act.[10] Pursuant to said v. Masweng.”[11]
demolition orders, demolition advices dated September 19, On February 4, 2009, this Court rendered a Decision
2006 were issued by the city government informing the reversing and setting aside the ruling of the CA and dismissed
occupants of the intended demolition of the structures on NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-06. This Court held that although the
October 17 to 20, 2006. NCIP had the authority to issue temporary restraining orders
On October 13, 2006, a petition for injunction with prayer and writs of injunction, Elvin Gumangan, et al., were not
for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary entitled to the relief granted by the NCIP-CAR. On April 22,
injunction was filed by Elvin Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and 2009, this Court denied with finality the motion for
Lazaro Bawas before the NCIP-CAR against the City of reconsideration filed by Elvin Gumangan, et al. The decision
Baguio, The Anti-Squatting Committee, City Building and thus became final and executory on June 9, 2009.[12]
 Thereafter, petitioner, through the Office of the Mayor, Gumangan. They sought to enjoin the enforcement of the
issued Demolition Advices dated May 20, 2009[13] and July 20, demolition orders.
2009[14]against Alexander Ampaguey, Sr.,[15] a certain Mr. On the same day, July 27, 2009, respondent issued two
Basatan, Julio Daluyen, Sr.,[16] Carmen Panayo, and separate 72-hour temporary restraining orders in NCIP Case
Concepcion Padang. Said Demolition Advices notified them Nos. 31-CAR-09[19] and 29-CAR-09.[20] The order in NCIP
that Demolition Order No. 33, Series of 2005 and Demolition Case No. 31-CAR-09 restraining the implementation of the
Order No. 83, Series of 1999 will be enforced in July 2009 and demolition advices and demolition orders reads:
advised them to voluntarily dismantle their structures built WHEREFORE, premises considered, a Temporary Restraining
on the Busol Watershed. Order pursuant to Section 69 (d) of R.A. [No.] 8371 in relation to
On July 23, 2009, Magdalena Gumangan, Marion Pool, Section 83 of NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1, series of 2003 is
Lourdes Hermogeno, Bernardo Simon, Joseph Legaspi, Joseph hereby issued against the respondents namely, CITY OF BAGUIO
represented by City Mayor REINALDO BAUTISTA JR., CITY
Basatan, Marcelino Basatan, Josephine Legaspi and Lansigan
BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURE OFFICE represented by
Bawas filed a petition[17] for the identification, delineation
OSCAR FLORES and all persons under their instructions and
and recognition of their ancestral land and enforce- acting for and in their behalves are
_______________ _______________
[11] G.R. No. 180206, February 4, 2009, 578 SCRA 88. [18] Id., at pp. 31-39.
[12] Rollo, p. 166. [19] Id., at pp. 74-76.
[13] Id., at p. 40. [20] Id., at pp. 98-100.
[14] Id., at p. 43. 101hereby ordered to stay and refrain from implementing
[15] Alex Ampaguey, Sr. in some parts of the records.
Demolition Advice dated May 20, 2009, Demolition Order No. 33
[16] Julio Daluyan in some parts of the records.
[17] Rollo, pp. 114-123. series of 2005, Demolition Advice dated July 20, 2009 and
100ment of their rights as indigenous cultural Demolition Order No. 69 series of 2002 within Seventy Two (72)
Hours upon receipt of this order on the residential houses/structures
communities/indigenous peoples, with prayer for the issuance
of Alexander Ampaguey Sr., Julio Daluyen Sr., Concep[c]ion Padang
of a TRO and 0writ of preliminary injunction. The case was
and Carmen Panayo all located at Busol Water Reservation, Baguio
docketed as NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09. City.[21]
On July 27, 2009, Alexander Ampaguey, Sr., Julio Daluyen, In NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09, petitioner and the City
Sr., Carmen Panayo and Concepcion Padang filed a Building and Architecture Office, represented by Oscar Flores;
petition[18] for injunction with urgent prayer for issuance Public Safety and Order Division, represented by Gregorio
of00000000000 a temporary restraining order and writ of Deligero; the Baguio Demolition Team, represented by
preliminary injunction before the NCIP against petitioner and Engr. Nazeta Banez; and all persons under their instructions
the City Building and Architecture Office. The case was were ordered to refrain from demolishing the residential
docketed as NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09. They averred that structures of Magdalena Gumangan, Marion Pool, Lourdes
they are all indigenous people particularly of the Ibaloi and Hermogeno, Bernardo Simon, Joseph Legaspi, Joseph
Kankanaey Tribes, who are possessors of residential houses Basatan, Marcelino Basatan, Josephine Legaspi and Lansigan
and other improvements at Bayan Park and Ambiong, Aurora Bawas located at Busol Water Reservation.
Hill, Baguio City by virtue of transfers effected in accordance Subsequently, respondent issued two separate
with traditions and customary laws from the ancestral land Orders[22] both dated July 31, 2009 in NCIP Case Nos. 29-
claimants namely, the Heirs of Molintas and the Heirs of
CAR-09 and 31-CAR-09 extending the 72-hour temporary He adds that he was aware of the said pronouncement and had
restraining orders for another 17 days. to rule on the matter so he extensively explained and laid out
On August 14, 2009, respondent issued a Writ of his legal basis for issuing the assailed orders and writs.
Preliminary Injunction[23] in NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09, Respondent further posits that if petitioner believes that he
followed by a Writ of Preliminary Injunction[24] in NCIP Case committed an error in issuing his orders and resolutions, there
No. 29-CAR-09. are judicial remedies provided by law. Thus, petitioner could
Hence, this petition asserting that the restraining orders have filed a motion for reconsideration of the assailed orders
and writs of preliminary injunction were issued in willful dis- and resolutions or a petition for review if such motion for
regard, disobedience, defiance and resistance of this Court’s reconsideration is denied. Petitioner likewise could have filed
Decision in G.R. No. 180206 which dismissed the previous a motion for inhibition or a request for change of venue if it
_______________ feels that valid ground exists to warrant the same.
[21] Id., at p. 75. _______________
[22] Id., at pp. 85-97, 101-113. [25] Id., at pp. 173-190.
[23] Id., at pp. 132-133. 103
[24] Id., at pp. 149-150.
The sole issue to be resolved is whether the respondent
102injunction case. Petitioner contends that respondent’s act
should be cited in contempt of court for issuing the subject
of enjoining the execution of the demolition orders and
temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary
demolition advices is tantamount to allowing forum shopping
injunction.
since the implementation of the demolition orders over the
We rule in the affirmative.
structures in the Busol Forest Reservation had already been
The applicable provision is Section 3 of Rule 71 of the 1997
adjudicated and affirmed by this Court.
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which states:
In his Comment,[25] respondent claims that he issued the SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and
restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction in NCIP hearing.—After a charge in writing has been filed, and an
Case Nos. 31-CAR-09 and 29-CAR-09 because his jurisdiction opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within
was called upon to protect and preserve the rights of the such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself
petitioners (in the NCIP cases) who were undoubtedly or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be
members of the indigenous cultural communities/indigenous punished for indirect contempt:
peoples. He avers that his personal judgment and assessment xxxx
of the allegations of the parties in their pleadings, as b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
supported by their attachments, convinced him that the order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who,
after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the
petitioners therein were entitled to such restraining orders
judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or
and writs of injunction.
attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property,
Respondent maintains that the orders and writs he issued for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in
did not disregard the earlier ruling of this Court in G.R. No. any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to
180206. He points out that the Court has in fact affirmed the be entitled thereto;
power of the NCIP to issue temporary restraining orders and x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
writs of injunction without any prohibition against the
issuance of said writs when the main action is for injunction.
 Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the Court the subject of demolition orders issued by petitioner, are not
by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It entitled
signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the _______________
[26] Roxas v. Tipon, G.R. Nos. 160641 & 160642, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA
court’s orders, but such conduct which tends to bring the 52, 62.
authority of the court and the administration of law into [27] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Calanza, G.R. No. 180699, October
disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 186, 193.
of justice. Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, [28] Id.
[29] Heirs of Justice Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil. 827, 843; 338 SCRA
justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring 282, 299 (2000).
the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or 105to the injunctive relief granted by herein respondent in his
104to interfere with or prejudice party litigants or their
capacity as Regional Hearing Officer of the NCIP, thus:
witnesses during litigation.[26] The crucial question to be asked then is whether private
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts respondents’ ancestral land claim was indeed recognized by
and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial Proclamation No. 15, in which case, their right thereto may be
proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and protected by an injunctive writ. After all, before a writ of
mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due preliminary injunction may be issued, petitioners must show that
administration of justice.[27] Only in cases of clear and there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which
contumacious refusal to obey should the power be exercised, injunction is directed are violative of said right.
however, such power, being drastic and extraordinary in its Proclamation No. 15, however, does not appear to be a definitive
recognition of private respondents’ ancestral land claim. The
nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the
proclamation merely identifies the Molintas and Gumangan
interest of justice.[28] The court must exercise the power of
families, the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents, as
contempt judiciously and sparingly, with utmost self- claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest Reservation but does not
restraint, with the end in view of utilizing the same for acknowledge vested rights over the same. In fact, Proclamation No.
correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for 15 explicitly withdraws the Busol Forest Reservation from sale or
retaliation or vindication.[29] settlement. It provides:
In this case, respondent was charged with indirect “Pursuant to the provisions of section eighteen hundred
contempt for issuing the subject orders enjoining the and twenty-six of Act Numbered Twenty-seven Hundred and
implementation of demolition orders against illegal structures eleven[,] I hereby establish the Busol Forest Reservation to be
constructed on a portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation administered by the Bureau of Forestry for the purpose of
located at Aurora Hill, Baguio City. conserving and protecting water and timber, the protection of
the water supply being of primary importance and all other
In the Decision dated February 4, 2009 rendered in G.R.
uses of the forest are to be subordinated to that purpose. I
No. 180206, the Court indeed upheld the authority of the
therefore withdraw from sale or settlement the following
NCIP to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of described parcels of the public domain situated in the
injunction to preserve the rights of parties to a dispute who Township of La Trinidad, City of Baguio, Mountain Province,
are members of indigenous cultural communities or Island of Luzon, to wit:”
indigenous peoples. However, the Court categorically ruled The fact remains, too, that the Busol Forest Reservation was
that Elvin Gumangan, et al., whose houses and structures are declared by the Court as inalienable in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court
of Appeals. The declaration of the Busol Forest Reservation as such
precludes its conversion into private property. Relatedly, the courts 107same demolition orders. Magdalena Gumangan, et al., in
are not Case No. 29-CAR-09 anchored their ownership claim over
106endowed with jurisdictional competence to adjudicate forest portions of Busol Forest Reservation on Proclamation No.
lands. 15 as the portions occupied by the Gumangans and Molintas,
All told, although the NCIP has the authority to issue
their predecessors-in-interest, are indicated in the plans. In
temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction, we
Case No. 31-CAR-09, Alexander Ampaguey, Sr., et al.,
are not convinced that private respondents are entitled to
the relief granted by the Commission.[30] (Emphasis supplied.) likewise trace their ownership claims to the Heirs of Molintas
and Heirs of Gumangan and a title (OCT No. 44) granted to
Accordingly, the CA decision affirming the injunctive writ Molintas on September 20, 1919 before the property was
issued by respondent against the demolition orders of declared a reservation in 1922. The latter further argued that
petitioner was reversed and set aside, and the petition for by virtue of R.A. No. 8371, the jurisdiction of the DENR over
injunction (Case No. 31-CAR-06) was dismissed. In pursuance the Busol Forest Reservation was transferred to the NCIP.
of the final Decision in G.R. No. 180206, petitioner issued the These matters touching on the issue of whether a clear legal
subject demolition advices for the enforcement of Demolition right exists for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
Order No. 33, Series of 2005 against Alexander Ampaguey, Sr. in favor of the said claimants have already been settled in G.R.
and Mr. Basatan, Demolition Order No. 83, Series of 1999 No. 180206. In other words, the same parties or persons
against Julio Daluyen, Sr., Concepcion Padang and Carmen representing identical interests have litigated on the same
Panayo, and Demolition Order No. 69, Series of 2002 against issue and subject matter insofar as the injunctive relief is
Julio Daluyen, Sr., Carmen Panayo, Benjamin Macelino, concerned. Evidently, the principle of res judicata applies to
Herminia Aluyen and five other unidentified owners of this case so that the parties are precluded from raising anew
structures, all in Busol Watershed, Baguio City. As it is, the those issues already passed upon by this Court.
aforesaid individuals filed a petition for injunction (Case No. We do not subscribe to respondent’s contention that
31-CAR-09) while Magdalena Gumangan, et al., filed a petitioner resorted to the wrong remedy in assailing the
petition for identification, delineation and recognition of injunctive orders as it should have moved for reconsideration
ancestral land claims with prayer for temporary restraining of the same and then appeal the denial thereof to the CA.
order and writ of preliminary injunction (Case No. 29-CAR- Likewise, we do not accept his explanation that his act of
09). Respondent issued separate temporary restraining orders issuing the assailed injunctive writs was not contemptuous
and writs of preliminary injunction in both cases. because the Court in G.R. No. 180206 even affirmed the power
The said orders clearly contravene our ruling in G.R. No. of the NCIP to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of
180206 that those owners of houses and structures covered by injunction without any prohibition against the issuance of said
the demolition orders issued by petitioner are not entitled to writs when the main action is for injunction.
the injunctive relief previously granted by respondent. As mentioned earlier, the Court while recognizing that the
We note that the same issues and arguments are raised in NCIP is empowered to issue temporary restraining orders and
the present petitions for injunction which sought to enjoin the writs of preliminary injunction, nevertheless ruled
_______________ that petitioners in the injunction case seeking to restrain the
[30] Supra note 11, at pp. 99-100. implementation of the subject demolition order are not entitled
to such
108relief.Petitioner City Government of Baguio in issuing the for a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals, acting on
demolition advices are simply enforcing the previous petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari, affirmed the temporary
demolition orders against the same occupants or claimants or restraining orders and the writ of preliminary injunction.
their agents and successors-in-interest, only to be thwarted This Court then upheld the jurisdiction of the NCIP on the basis
of the allegations in private respondents’ Petition for Injunction. It
anew by the injunctive orders and writs issued by respondent.
was similarly claimed in said Petition for Injunction that private
Despite the Court’s pronouncement in G.R. No. 180206 that
respondents were descendants of Molintas and Gumangan whose
no such clear legal right exists in favor of those occupants or claims over the portions of the Busol Watershed Reservation had
claimants to restrain the enforcement of the demolition orders been recognized by Proclamation No. 15. This Court thus ruled in
issued by petitioner, and hence there remains no legal G.R. No. 180206 that the nature of the action clearly qualify it as a
impediment to bar their implementation, respondent still dispute or controversy over ancestral lands/domains of the
issued the temporary restraining orders and writs of ICCs/IPs. On the basis of Section 69(d) of the IPRA and Section 82,
preliminary injunction. Worse, respondent would require Rule XV of NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03, the NCIP may
petitioner to simply appeal his ruling, a move that will only issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction without
result in multiple suits and endless litigation. any prohibition against the issuance of the writ when the main
In the recent case of The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. action is for injunction.
On petitioners’ argument that the City of Baguio is exempt from
v. Masweng[31] respondent issued similar temporary
the provisions of the IPRA and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the
restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction in favor
NCIP, this Court ruled in G.R. No. 180206 that said exemption
of claimants which include Magdalena Gumangan and cannot ipso facto be deduced from Section 78 of the IPRA because
Alexander Ampaguey, Sr. who sought to enjoin the Baguio the law concedes the validity of prior land rights recognized or
District Engineer’s Office, the Office of the City Architect and acquired through any process before its effectivity.
Parks Superintendent, the Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. Lastly, however, this Court ruled that although the NCIP has
and the Busol Task Force from fencing the Busol Watershed the authority to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of
Reservation. The CA affirmed respondent’s orders and injunction, it was not convinced that private respondents were
dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the aforesaid entitled to the relief granted by the Commission. Proclamation No.
offices. Applying the principle of stare decisis, the Court 15 does not appear to be a definitive recognition of private
ruled: respondents’ ancestral land claim, as it merely identifies the
On February 4, 2009, this Court promulgated its Decision in G.R. Molintas and Gumangan families as claimants of a portion of the
No. 180206, a suit which involved several of the parties in the case Busol Forest Reservation, but does not acknowledge vested rights
at bar. In G.R. No. 180206, the City Mayor of Baguio City issued over the same. Since it is required before the issuance of a writ of
three Demolition Orders with respect to allegedly illegal structures preliminary injunction that claimants show the existence of a right
constructed by private respondents therein on a portion of the Busol to be protected, this Court,
110in G.R. No. 180206, ultimately granted the petition of the City
Forest Reservation. Private respondents filed a Petition for
Injunction with the NCIP. Atty. Masweng issued two temporary Government of Baguio and set aside the writ of preliminary
restraining orders directing the City injunction issued therein.
_______________ In the case at bar, petitioners and private respondents
[31] G.R. No. 180882, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 109. present the very same arguments and counter-arguments
109Government of Baguio to refrain from enforcing
said Demolition with respect to the writ of injunction against the fencing of
Orders and subsequently granted private respondents’ application the Busol Watershed Reservation. The same legal issues are
thus being litigated in G.R. No. 180206 and in the case at bar, except consistently adhere to existing laws and principles as
that different writs of injunction are being assailed. In both cases, interpreted in the decisions of the Court.
petitioners claim (1) that Atty. Masweng is prohibited from issuing Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules provides the penalty for
temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction indirect contempt. Section 7 of Rule 71 reads:
against government infrastructure projects; (2) that Baguio City is SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt.—If the respondent
beyond the ambit of the IPRA; and (3) that private respondents is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a
have not shown a clear right to be protected. Private Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may
respondents, on the other hand, presented the same allegations in be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or
their Petition for Injunction, particularly the alleged recognition imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. x x x
made under Proclamation No. 15 in favor of their ancestors.
For his contumacious conduct and considering the
While res judicata does not apply on account of the different subject
attendant circumstances, the Court deems it proper to impose
matters of the case at bar and G.R. No. 180206 (they assail different
writs of injunction, albeit issued by the same hearing officer), we a fine of P10,000.00.
are constrained by the principle of stare decisis to grant the WHEREFORE, the petition for contempt
instant petition. The Court explained the principle of stare is GRANTED. The assailed Temporary Restraining Order
decisis in Ting v. Velez-Ting: dated July 27, 2009, Order dated July 31, 2009 and Writ of
The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower Preliminary Injunction in NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09, and
courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final Temporary Restraining Order dated July 27, 2009, Order
decisions. It is based on the principle that once a question of dated July 31, 2009 and Writ of Preliminary Injunction in
law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09 are hereby all LIFTED and SET
settled and closed to further argument. Basically, it is a bar to ASIDE.
any attempt to relitigate the same issues, necessary for two _______________
simple reasons: economy and stability. In our jurisdiction, the [32] Id., at pp. 122-125.
principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code. 112
(Citations omitted.) The Court finds respondent Atty. BRAIN S. MASWENG,
111 Regional Hearing Officer, National Commission on Indigenous
We have also previously held that “[u]nder the doctrine of stare Peoples, Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-
decisis, once a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable
CAR), GUILTY of Indirect Contempt and hereby imposes on
to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply
it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the
him a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) payable
same.”[32] (Emphasis supplied.) to this Court’s Cashier within ten (10) days from notice, with
the additional directive for respondent to furnish the Division
Clerk of this Court with a certified copy of the Official Receipt
Respondent’s willful disregard and defiance of this Court’s as proof of his compliance.
ruling on a matter submitted for the second time before his SO ORDERED.
office cannot be countenanced. By acting in opposition to this Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
Court’s authority and disregarding its final determination of Bersamin and Reyes, JJ., concur.
the legal issue pending before him, respondent failed in his Petition granted.
duty not to impede the due administration of justice and Notes.—Under Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court, the following procedural requisites must be satisfied
before the accused may be punished for indirect contempt: (1)
there must be an order requiring the respondent to show cause
why he should not be cited for contempt; (2) the respondent
must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge
against him; and (3) there must be a hearing and the court
must investigate the charge and consider respondent’s
answer. (Belen vs. Comilang, 692 SCRA 176 [2013])
A party and its counsel who deliberately or neglectfully
delay the prompt termination of their court case are further
guilty of abuse of court processes and of impeding the smooth
administration of justice, rendering them amenable to being
cited for indirect contempt of court under Section 3, (c) and (d),
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. (Philworth Asia, Inc. vs.
Philippine Commercial International Bank, 697 SCRA 206
[2013])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.