G.R. No. 188913 ; February 19, 2014
CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO, REPRESENTED BY CITY MAYOR REINALDO A. BAUTISTA, JR., Petitioner, vs. ATTY. BRAIN S. MASWENG, Respondent.

FACTS

The City Government of Baguio issued demolition orders against structures illegally built on the Busol Watershed Reservation. In a prior, related case ( G.R. No. 180206 ), the Supreme Court had already ruled with finality that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) improperly issued injunctive relief to stop similar demolitions, finding the affected individuals not entitled to such relief. Following this final decision, the city issued new demolition advices to enforce the orders against a different set of occupants.
Subsequently, new petitions for injunction were filed by these occupants before the NCIP-CAR, docketed as NCIP Case Nos. 29-CAR-09 and 31-CAR-09. The respondent, Atty. Brain S. Masweng, in his capacity as NCIP Regional Hearing Officer, issued 72-hour Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) and later Writs of Preliminary Injunction against the city’s demolition efforts. The City Government of Baguio then filed this petition for contempt against Atty. Masweng for issuing these orders.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Brain S. Masweng is guilty of indirect contempt for issuing the TROs and writs of preliminary injunction.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of indirect contempt. The Supreme Court found that the respondent’s actions constituted a willful disregard and disobedience of the Court’s final and executory judgment in G.R. No. 180206 . The legal logic is grounded on the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment or preclusion of issues (also known as collateral estoppel). The Court had already definitively ruled on the core issue: that the NCIP could not grant injunctive relief to prevent the demolition of structures on the Busol Watershed based on the claims presented. The new cases filed involved the same watershed land, the same demolition orders from the city, and raised identical claims of ancestral rights that had already been adjudicated.
By issuing the TROs and injunctions, respondent effectively re-litigated and decided upon the very issue that the Supreme Court had already settled with finality. This was a clear obstruction of the administration of justice, as it prevented the City from enforcing a lawful order that had already been upheld by the highest court. The respondent, as a lawyer and hearing officer, had a duty to respect the final judgment. His issuance of the orders, under circumstances nearly identical to those already decided, demonstrated a deliberate defiance of the Court’s authority, warranting a finding of indirect contempt.