Case Digest (G.R. No. 180882)
Facts:
The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. v. Atty. Brain Masweng, G.R. No. 180882, February 27, 2013, First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. (represented by Atty. Erdolfo V. Balajadia), the City Environment and Parks Management Office (OIC Cordelia C. Lacsamana), and the Busol Forest Reservation Task Force (Team Leader Victor Dictag). Respondents are private claimants — Elizabeth Mat-an, Judith Maranes, Helen Lubos, Magdalena Gumangan Que, and spouses Alexander and Lucia Ampaguey and Melanio and Carmen Panayo — who filed before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) a Petition for Injunction with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and later a writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin petitioners and certain City offices from fencing portions of the Busol Watershed Reservation.Private respondents alleged membership in the Ibaloi and Kankanaey tribes and claimed ancestral ownership of portions of the Busol Watershed identified in Proclamation No. 15 and related survey plans; they asserted that the fencing project would deprive them of access, water sources, farmland and ritual yards. Relying on the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (R.A. 8371, a/k/a IPRA), they sought injunctive protection.
On October 21, 2002, NCIP Regional Hearing Officer (RHO) Brain S. Masweng issued an ex parte TRO (effective 20 days) enjoining respondents from fencing specified lots described in Proclamation No. 15. RHO Masweng denied petitioners’ motion to dissolve the TRO (November 6, 2002), then, on November 12, 2002, issued a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned on the posting of bonds, holding that the NCIP has jurisdiction under IPRA (Section 69(d)) and its implementing rules (NCIP Admin. Circular No. 1-03, Sec. 82) to issue such writs, and that petitioners had not shown compliance with procedural rules they invoked.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration; RHO Masweng denied it as late (June 20, 2003). Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion. On April 30, 2007, the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 78570 dismissed the petition and affirmed the NCIP orders, but on its own motion enjoined private respondents from introducing constructions or engaging in activities that would degrade the watershed until measures under Section 58 of IPRA were adopted. A motion for partial reconsideration to the CA was denied on December 11, 2007.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. The Court subsequently considered prior related litigation involving some of the same parties — City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng, G.R. No. 180206 (Feb. 4, 2009) — in which this Court recognized NCIP’s jurisdiction but set asi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NCIP Regional Hearing Officer have jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction in this dispute?
- Does Republic Act No. 8975 (and the laws it superseded such as PD 1818) prohibit the NCIP or its hearing officers from issuing TROs and preliminary injunctions against government infrastructure projects?
- Does Section 78 of R.A. 8371 (the IPRA) exclude the City of Baguio from NCIP jurisdiction such that private respondents’ claims are beyond the Commission’s reach?
- Did private respondents demonstrate the clear, unmistakable and positive legal right necessary to warrant ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)