Case Digest (G.R. No. 212607) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Puerto Del Sol Palawan, Inc. v. Hon. Kissack B. Gabaen and Andrew Abis (G.R. No. 212607, March 27, 2019), respondent Andrew Abis, a member of the Cuyunen Tribe, on August 15, 2011 filed with NCIP Regional Hearing Office IV (RHO IV) Complaint No. 038-RIV-11 alleging that petitioner Puerto Del Sol Palawan, Inc. (PDSPI) and its representative Michael Batchelor unlawfully intruded on ancestral land in Sitio Orbin, Brgy. Concepcion, Busuanga, Palawan, put up no-trespassing signs, destroyed tribal crops, deployed armed guards and developed the Puerto del Sol Resort. A TRO was issued on August 22, 2011. PDSPI answered on September 8, 2011, denying overlap with ancestral domain. After hearings, RHO IV rendered a Decision on November 22, 2012 in favor of Abis, finding PDSPI’s intrusion unlawful; PDSPI received it on November 29, 2012. PDSPI filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 13, 2012, which RHO IV denied on December 18, 2012 (received December 21). On January 7, 2013 PDSPI Case Digest (G.R. No. 212607) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Origin and Nature of the Dispute
- On August 15, 2011, private respondent Andrew Abis filed with NCIP RHO IV Complaint No. 038-RIV-11 for “Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion,” alleging that he and the Cuyunen Tribe occupied ancestral lands in Sitio Orbin, Brgy. Concepcion, Busuanga, Palawan since time immemorial.
- Abis claimed that petitioner Puerto Del Sol Palawan, Inc. (PDSPI), through Michael Batchelor, intruded into these lands, posted “no trespassing” signs, deployed armed guards, destroyed crops, and developed the Puerto del Sol Resort therein.
- Proceedings Before NCIP RHO IV
- On August 22, 2011, RHO IV issued a TRO in favor of Abis. PDSPI filed its Answer on September 8, 2011, denying any overlap with ancestral domain.
- After hearings, RHO IV rendered its Decision on November 22, 2012, ruling that the resort sits on Cuyunen ancestral lands and that PDSPI intruded unlawfully; PDSPI received the Decision on November 29, 2012.
- Post-Decision Motions and Appeals
- PDSPI filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 10, 2012 (received December 13, 2012); RHO IV denied it by Order dated December 18, 2012 (received December 21, 2012).
- PDSPI then filed its Memorandum on Appeal on January 7, 2013; RHO IV denied due course by Order of January 14, 2013, as purportedly late.
- Aggrieved, PDSPI filed a certiorari petition with the CA on March 4, 2013 (CA-G.R. SP No. 129036); the CA denied it outright on April 3, 2013, and likewise denied PDSPI’s motion for reconsideration on May 20, 2014.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly invoked the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in dismissing PDSPI’s petition for certiorari assailing RHO IV’s January 14, 2013 Order.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)