G.R. No. 188913 - City Government of Baguio vs. Masweng

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188913)

Factual Background

The City Government of Baguio issued Demolition Order No. 33, Series of 2005 and Demolition Orders Nos. 25 and 28, Series of 2004 directing the demolition of illegal structures within a portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation at Aurora Hill, Baguio City, for violations including lack of building permits and breaches of P.D. No. 705, Section 69, the National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096) and the Urban Development and Housing Act (R.A. No. 7279). Demolition advices were served in 2006 and, after litigation, occupants filed petitions before the NCIP-CAR. In NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-06, filed October 13, 2006, respondent issued TROs in October 2006 and later a preliminary injunction; the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the petition in City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng, G.R. No. 180206, February 4, 2009, and the decision became final on June 9, 2009. Subsequent demolition advices were issued in May and July 2009 against specified occupants of Busol Watershed. New petitions — docketed as NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09 and NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09 — were filed in July 2009 by occupants and claimants asserting indigenous-cultural-community/indigenous-people rights and seeking TROs and writs of preliminary injunction to restrain enforcement of the demolition orders.

Actions of the Respondent

On July 27, 2009, respondent issued two separate 72-hour temporary restraining orders in NCIP Case Nos. 31-CAR-09 and 29-CAR-09 enjoining the City of Baguio and named city offices and officials from enforcing specified demolition advices and orders against the occupants named in those petitions. The July 27, 2009 orders invoked Section 69(d) of R.A. No. 8371 and Section 83 of NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03. On July 31, 2009 respondent extended each 72-hour TRO for seventeen days. Thereafter, respondent issued writs of preliminary injunction in both cases, the one in NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09 dated August 14, 2009, and the other in NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09.

Procedural History in the Supreme Court

Petitioner filed a petition for contempt in the Supreme Court alleging that respondent issued the TROs and writs in willful disregard of the Court’s final decision in G.R. No. 180206 which had adjudicated the same controversy and denied the claim to injunctive relief. The Supreme Court treated the matter under Rule 71, Sec. 3, which governs indirect contempt, and Sec. 7, which prescribes punishment for indirect contempt committed against a court of equivalent or higher rank. The Court heard the parties and received respondent’s comment defending his issuance of the orders.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner argued that respondent’s issuance of TROs and writs amounted to forum shopping and to willful disregard and resistance of the Supreme Court’s final and executory decision in G.R. No. 180206, which had held that the occupants were not entitled to injunctive relief and that the Busol Forest Reservation was inalienable. Petitioner asserted that the same issues and identical interests were being litigated anew and that respondent thereby impeded enforcement of final court rulings. Respondent contended that the NCIP retained jurisdiction to protect the rights of alleged members of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples and that his personal assessment of the pleadings justified issuance of the TROs and injunctions. He further argued that the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 180206 had recognized the NCIP’s power to issue such writs and that petitioner had available judicial remedies such as motions for reconsideration or appeals and procedural avenues like motions for inhibition or change of venue.

Issue Presented

The sole question presented was whether respondent should be cited for indirect contempt for issuing the subject temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction in disregard of this Court’s prior final decision.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied Rule 71, Sec. 3(b), which punishes indirect contempt including "disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court." The Court reiterated the settled definition of contempt as willful disobedience of court orders and conduct tending to bring the authority of the court into disrepute or to impede the administration of justice. The Court acknowledged that NCIP possesses authority to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction, a point affirmed in G.R. No. 180206 and reiterated in G.R. No. 180882, The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. v. Masweng. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that in G.R. No. 180206 it had expressly ruled that the private respondents whose structures were targeted by the demolition orders were not entitled to injunctive relief because Proclamation No. 15 did not definitively recognize vested private rights and the Busol Forest Reservation had been declared inalienable. The Court found that the identical legal issues and substantially the same parties or their successors were before respondent in NCIP Case Nos. 29-CAR-09 and 31-CAR-09. By issuing the TROs and injunctions, respondent acted in contravention of the Supreme Court’s final determination and thereby failed in the duty to adhere to the Court’s pronouncements. The Court invoked the bar of res judicata as to the dispositive legal question and relied on the principle of stare decisis to require adherence to its prior ruling where the facts and parties were substantially the same. The Court rejected respondent’s contention that petitioner should have pursued ordinary appeals or motions for reconsideration from respondent’s orders, observing that to require such repetitive remedies would spawn multiple suits and endless litigation contrary to the finality and authority of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court cautioned that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised sparingly and only in cases of clea

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 188913)

Parties and Posture

City Government of Baguio, herein represented by City Mayor Reinaldo A. Bautista, Jr. filed a petition for contempt before the Court.
Atty. Brain S. Masweng was the respondent in his capacity as Regional Hearing Officer of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR).
The petition assailed two sets of orders issued by respondent in NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09 and NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09, each consisting of a 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order, an extension Order, and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
The Court resolved whether respondent should be cited for indirect contempt for issuing the assailed injunctive writs after this Court's final decision in G.R. No. 180206.

Key Facts

The City Government of Baguio issued Demolition Order No. 33, Series of 2005 and Demolition Orders Nos. 25 and 28, Series of 2004 for illegal structures on a portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation at Aurora Hill, Baguio City.
Demolition advices dated September 19, 2006 and later advices dated May 20, 2009 and July 20, 2009 notified occupants of intended enforcement of the demolition orders.
Private persons filed NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-06 in October 2006, and Atty. Masweng issued temporary restraining orders and a preliminary injunction which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
This Court in G.R. No. 180206 rendered a Decision on February 4, 2009 reversing the CA and dismissing NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-06, and the judgment became final and executory on June 9, 2009.
In July 2009 claimants filed new petitions for injunction and for identification and recognition of ancestral lands before NCIP-CAR docketed as NCIP Case Nos. 31-CAR-09 and 29-CAR-09, and Atty. Masweng issued 72-hour TROs on July 27, 2009, extended them on July 31, 2009, and issued writs of preliminary injunction on August 14, 2009.
Petitioner alleged that the assailed injunctions constituted willful disregard of this Court's final ruling in G.R. No. 180206 and amounted to forum shopping and obstruction of execution of final orders.

Procedural History

The CA initially affirmed the NCIP-CAR injunction in the first round of litigation concerning the Busol Watershed, which this Court reversed in G.R. No. 180206 on February 4, 2009.
After the issuance of the final Decision in G.R. No. 180206, new petitions were filed in NCIP-CAR and respondent again issued injunctive writs in NCIP Case Nos. 31-CAR-09 and 29-CAR-09.
The City Government of Baguio filed the present petition for contempt before this Court seeking relief from the respondent's subsequent orders.
The Court adjudicated the contempt petition and rendered a decision finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt and lifting and setting aside the assailed writs.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent's issuance of the 72-hour temporary restraining orders, the extension orders, and the writs of preliminary injunction in NCIP Case Nos. 31-CAR-09 and 29-CAR-09 constituted indirect contempt of this Court.
Whether the prior final Decision in G.R. No. 180206 precluded respondent from reissuing injunctive relief against enforcement of the same demolition orders.
What sanction, if any, should be imposed upon a Regional Hearing Officer of the NCIP-CAR adjudged guilty of indirect contempt.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that respondent willfully disregarded and defied this Court's final ruling in G.R. No. 180206 and thereby impeded the execution of the demolition orders and engaged in forum shopping.
Respondent c