10/12/2019
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Concepcion Padang, and Carmen Panayo (Ampaguey petition) are the petitioners in
NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09. In their petition,[4] filed on 23 July 2009, they prayed that
the petitioners be enjoined from enforcing the demolition orders affecting their
properties inside the Busol Forest Reserve. The Ampaguey Petition claimed that they
have pending applications for their ancestral land claims before the NCIP.
Both the Gumangan and Ampaguey petitions assail that petitioners have no right to
enforce the demolition orders and to evict them from their properties. They aver that
their claims over their ancestral lands are protected and recognized under Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA).
Proceedings before the NCIP-CAR
In his 27 July 2009 Order,[5] public respondent Atty. Brain Masweng (Atty. Masweng),
NCIP-CAR Hearing Officer, issued a 72-Hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the
Gumangan petition. On the same date, he issued another order[6] for a 72-Hour TRO
on the Ampaguey petition. On 14 August 2009, Atty. Masweng issued a writ of
preliminary injunction in NCIP Case Nos. 29-CAR-09[7] and 31-CAR-09.[8]
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari[9] before the CA assailing the TRO
and preliminary injunction issued by Atty. Masweng in the above NCIP case.
The CA Ruling
In its 5 August 2010 decision, the CA dismissed petitioners' petition for certiorari for
being procedurally flawed because they did not file a motion for reconsideration before
the NCIP. The appellate court elucidated that the present petition constituted forum
shopping because petitioners had a pending motion to dismiss before the NCIP. Further,
the CA ruled that the NCIP had the power to issue the injunctive relief noting that the
NCIP did not act with grave abuse of discretion because the issuances were in
accordance with law. It ruled:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSSED. The assailed issuances
STAND. Costs against Petitioners.[10]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its
assailed 31 January 2011 resolution.
Hence, this present petition raising the following:
ISSUES
I.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI FOR BEING PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE; AND
II.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64367
2/13