GR 193964; (December, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193964 , December 2, 2015
Engineer Ben Y. Lim, RBL Fishing Corporation, Palawan Aquaculture Corporation, and Peninsula Shipyard Corporation, Petitioners vs. Hon. Sulpicio G. Gamosa, Officer-in-Charge, NCIP Regional Hearing Office, Region IV and Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community of Barangay Buenavista, Coron, Palawan, as represented by Fernando P. Aguido, et al., Respondents
FACTS
The respondent Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC) filed a petition before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) against the petitioners, who are non-members of an ICC, for alleged violation of their rights to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and unauthorized intrusion. The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the NCIP lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter since they are non-IPs, and over their persons due to improper service of summons. They also asserted a lack of cause of action and forum shopping.
The NCIP denied the motion, ruling it had jurisdiction over the case as it involved IP rights, regardless of the respondents’ status. It held that the requirement for exhaustion of customary remedies under Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) applied only when both parties were IPs/ICCs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NCIP’s resolutions. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, primarily contesting the NCIP’s jurisdiction over them as non-IPs.
ISSUE
Whether the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has jurisdiction over a claim filed by an Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC) against non-members of an ICC.
RULING
Yes, the NCIP has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the NCIP and the Court of Appeals. The Court clarified the interpretation of Section 66 of the IPRA, which grants the NCIP jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs. The proviso in Section 66, requiring a certification of exhaustion of customary remedies from the Council of Elders, applies only when both parties are members of the same ICC/IP. This requirement is a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction in intra-ICC disputes.
When one party is a non-member, as in this case, the NCIP’s jurisdiction is not barred. The law’s intent is to provide a specialized forum for the protection of IP rights, and such protection is necessary precisely when these rights are allegedly violated by outside parties. The petitioners’ argument that jurisdiction is limited to disputes between IPs would undermine the IPRA’s purpose of safeguarding ancestral domains and cultural integrity from external incursions. Therefore, the NCIP properly took cognizance of the case. The other procedural issues on summons and cause of action were also resolved against the petitioners, sustaining the NCIP’s authority to proceed with the adjudication of the substantive rights invoked by the respondent ICC.