Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

REGIONAL HEARING OFFICE
REGION XI
E. Valeroso Bldg., E. B. Lopez St., Sandawa Plaza, SIR Matina
Davao City

MACO ANCESTRAL DOMAIN NCIP CASE NO. RXI-0037-12

COUNCIL, INC. (MDCI)
Complainant,

- versus - FOR: SPECIFIC

PERFORMANCE, DAMAGES
AND ATTORNEY’S FEES WITH
ISSUANCE OF TRO AND
INJUNCTION

APEX MINING COMPANY, INC.

Thru BENOIT DE GALBERT (CEO)
And JESUS ANIN (Resident Manager),
Respondents.

MANGKATADUNG MANSAKA
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ANCESTRAL
DOMAIN OF MACO (MMIPADMA)
AS REPRESENTED BY DATU DANIEL
G. CALIBADAN,
Intervenor,

SUMPAW NG INANGSABONG
MANSAKA, INC. (SIMI) REPRESENTED
BY DATU RUDY T. ONLOS,
Intervenor.

X---------------------------------------------------------/

ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT-IN-

INTERVENTION DATED MARCH 13, 2014
COMES NOW, Complainant MACO ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
COUNCIL, INC. (MADCI), herein represented by DATU ROLANDO M.
CASIGLOMAN, ET AL., through the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Office, most respectfully states:

1
 ADMISSIONS

Complainant admits the following allegations in the COMPLAINT-IN-

INTERVENTION dated March 13, 2014 of intervenor Mangkatadung
Mansaka Indigenous Peoples Ancestral Domain of Maco, Inc. (MMIPADMA),
to wit:

1.1 Paragraph 1.3, only as to the specific allegation on the

circumstances affecting respondent APEX Mining Co., Inc. as a corporation;

1.2 Paragraph 1.4, only as to allegation that complainant-intervenor

Sumpaw ng Inangsubong Mansaka, Inc. (SIMI) is a clan-based tribal
organization of the Onlos clan but not necessarily as a recipient of the
compensation for the surface rights from APEX Mining Co., Inc.;

1.3 Paragraph 2.b, only as to the admission by MMIPADMA on

Paragraph 2.3 of the COMPLAINT dated November 11, 2012 of complainant
MADCI on the contracting parties of the subject MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT (MOA);

1.4 Paragraph 2.7, only as to the allegation that respondent APEX

Mining Co., Inc. has no basis under law and under equity and justice to
suspend the release of the royalty shares to the Mansaka people of Maco,
Compostela Valley;

DENIALS

SPECIFIC DENIALS

For reasons stated and raised in the Affirmative Allegations, Defenses

and other claims hereinafter set forth, the complainant specifically DENIES
the allegations as stated in the following paragraphs of the complaint:

2
 2.1 All paragraphs of the prefatory statement more particularly on
the allegations that intervenor-MMIPADMA is the rightful and recognized
indigenous people’s organization and legitimate representative of the
Mansaka tribe of Maco, Compostela Valley and that MMIPADMA has real
and legal interest in the subject-matter of litigation as it stands to be
prejudiced by any decision made by the Honorable Office in favor of
complainant MADCI and intervenor SIMI against APEX Mining Co., Inc. as
well as the allegation that MMIPADMA is entitled to all claims wrongly
interposed by the foregoing parties against APEX Mining Co., Inc.;

2.2 Paragraph 1.1, as regard the allegation that MMIPADMA is the

recognized and functional indigenous people’s organization of the Mansaka
tribe of Maco, Compostela Valley;

2.3 Paragraph 1.2, as to the allegation that complainant MADCI is

the defunct tribal organization of the Mansakas of Maco, Compostela Valley,
which was reorganized with new tribal chieftains and replaced by
MMIPADMA as the new federation of barangay council of elders;

2.4 Paragraph 1.4, pertaining only to the allegation that SIMI is the
recipient of the compensation for the surface rights from APEX Mining Co.,
Inc.;

2.5 Paragraph 2.a, with regard to the allegation that MMIPADMA is

presently the rightful, legitimate, recognized, active and operational
representative of the indigenous cultural communities belonging to the
Mansaka tribe of Maco, Compostela Valley;

2.6 Paragraph 2.c, as to the obligation of APEX Mining Co., Inc. to

provide the royalty share to the ICC/Mansaka tribe of Maco, Compostela
Valley and not to complainant MADCI;

3
 2.7 Paragraph 2.d, as regard the allegation that MADCI well knows
but is maliciously and deliberately misleading the Honorable Office that
APEX Mining Co., Inc. did not release the royalty shares to MADCI from the
time the ICC of the Mansaka people of Maco, Compostela Valley conducted a
reorganization of its Barangay Tribal Council of Elders and Leaders (BTCEL)
and created MMIPADMA;

2.8 Paragraph 2.d, as to the allegation that complainant MADCI

failed to liquidate resulting to betrayal of trust, total absence of accountability
from the officers of MADCI and reorganization of their BTCEL or creation of
MMIPADMA to replace MADCI;

2.9 Paragraph 2.e, as to the allegation that under Paragraph 2.9 of the
COMPLAINT dated November 11, 2012 of MADCI, the complainant stated
that APEX Mining Co., Inc. had downloaded P22,000,000.00 as royalty share
to MADCI because the truth of the matter is that the said amount of
P22,000,000.00 was deposited to the account of MADCI as payment for
royalty share. There is no word “downloaded” under Paragraph 2.9 of the
COMPLAINT dated November 11, 2012 of MADCI;

2.10 Paragraph 2.e, as to the allegation that APEX Mining Co., Inc.
owes to the Mansaka tribe of Maco, Compostela Valley through MMIPADMA
as its rightful representative the amount of P20,894,108.35 representing the
balance of the unpaid royalty shares for the stated period;

2.10 Paragraph 2.f, as to the allegation on the claim of MMIPADMA

for the discrepancy in the amount of the funds that had been released to
MMIPADMA from the correct amount corresponding to one percent (1%) of
the gross profits from 2011 up to 2012 per gross production reports submitted
by APEX Mining Co., Inc. to the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau, Regional
Office XI, as well as the discrepancy for the 1% corresponding to the surface
rights for this period;

4
 2.11 Paragraph 2.g, as regard the allegation that due to the malicious
filing of the present Complaint, intervenor MMIPADMA and the entire
population of the Mansaka tribe of Maco, Compostela Valley had
tremendously suffered due to the discontinuance of funds for the operation of
the established social programs for their general welfare and benefit;

2.12 Paragraph 2, as to the allegation that upon the filing of the

COMPLAINT dated November 11, 2012, APEX Mining Co., Inc. unjustifiably
and unjustly ceased all payments of royalty fees to MMIPADMA thereby
causing incalculable damage and prejudice to the indigenous cultural
communities of the Mansaka People of Maco, Compostela Valley as the
operations of all its community programs and projects were suspended due to
lack of funds;

2.13 Paragraph 2.1, as to the allegation that MMIPADMA is the

recognized indigenous people of Mansaka People of Maco, Compostela
Valley;

2.14 Paragraph 2.2, as to the allegation that all payments of royalty

fees are rightfully due to MMIPADMA;

2.15 Paragraph 2.3, as to the allegation that complainant MADCI has

been reorganized, replaced and relegated to non-existence and that
MMIPADMA is now the present, legitimate, active, operational, and
recognized IPO of the Mansaka tribe of Maco, Compostela Valley;

2.16 Paragraph 2.4, as to the allegation that complainant MADCI no

longer had the right or any personality to claim as officers thereto and
conduct any business with respondent APEX Mining Co., Inc.;

2.17 Paragraph 2.5, as to the allegation that way back sometime on

September 26, 2011, complainant MADCI was no longer authorized to
transact business with APEX Mining Co., Inc.;

5
 2.18 Paragraph 2.6, as to the allegation that respondent APEX Mining
Co., Inc. fully recognized the defunct status of MADCI as well as the active
and functional status of MMIPADMA in relation to the re-organized BTCEL
of the Mansaka people of Maco, Compostela Valley as the current IPO in the
same Municipality;

2.19 Paragraph 3, as regard the allegation that the instant complaint is

capricious, arbitrary and malicious act designed to pursue selfish interests
and promote personal avarice resulting to the tremendous damage and
prejudice to the entire community of Mansaka People of Maco, Compostela
Valley and in filing this complaint, complainant selfishly ignored the fact they
would be causing damage to the operational programs and projects that
redound to the communal well-being of the communities of the Mansaka
People of Maco, Compostela Valley, thereby choosing to pursue their
personal interests;

2.20 Paragraph 3.1, as to the allegation that the complainant

deliberately omitted to implead intervenor MMIPADMA in the instant case as
an attempt to circumvent the law on forum-shopping and to prevent the
application of the rules on Res Judicata, as the case filed before RTC,
Nabunturan, Compostela Valley was evidently doomed to fail;

2.21 Paragraph 3.2, as regard the allegation that MADCI and the
BTCEL of the ICCs/IPs of the Mansakas of Maco, Compostela Valley was
reorganized due to their massive loss of trust and confidence of then officers
thereof;

2.22 Paragraph 3.2, as to the allegation that the previous officers of

MADCI failed and refused to render an account and audit of expenditures of
the staggering amount of P22,000,000.00;

6
 2.23 Paragraph 3.3, as to the allegation that the complainant was part
and privy of the reorganization of MADCI during the General Assembly
conducted sometime on April 1, 2011;

2.24 Paragraph 3.4, as to the allegation that the complainant is also

aware of the several general assemblies made by the Mansaka People of
Maco, Compostela Valley, for the purpose of validating the reorganization of
the former officers of MADCI and the non-recognition of MADCI as the
authorized corporate entity to represent them in their behalf;

2.25 Paragraph 3.5, as to the allegation that MADCI is now defunct;

2.26 Paragraph 3.6, as to the allegation that MMIPADMA came into

existence as the recognized IPO of the Mansakas of Maco, Compostela Valley;

2.27 Paragraph 3.7, as to the allegation that MADCI is no longer in

existence and thus no longer functioning as the IPO of the Mansaka tribe of
Maco, Compostela Valley;

2.28 Paragraph 3.6 found in Page 12, as regard the allegation that
MADCI is well aware that MMIPADMA is now the present, active and
operational IPO of Mansaka tribe in Maco, Compostela Valley and all other
allegations contained therein;

NO KNOWLEDGE

For lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

accuracy thereof, the following allegations are likewise specifically denied, to
wit:

7
 3.1 Paragraph 3.7 of Page 13, with regard to the allegation that
MMIPADMA had been prejudiced and suffered actual and moral damages
amounting to P20,000,000.00;

3.2 Paragraph 3.8 of Page 13, as to the allegation that MMIPADMA

had suffered exemplary damages amounting to P20,000,000.00, which must be
paid or compensated by complainant MADCI;

3.13 Paragraph 3.9, as regard the allegation that MMIPADMA was

constrained to engage the services of a counsel and in so doing, it incurred
cost of suit in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) plus
attorney’s fees amounting to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00)
plus Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) every appearance during the hearing of
the instant case.

3.14 All paragraphs under the heading: “Cause of Action and Cross-
Claim against SIMI”

AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS

In support of the Specific Denials, Affirmative Defenses and

counterclaims, complainant respectfully repleads all its allegations in the
COMPLAINT dated November 11, 2012 and further alleges that:

4.1 It appears that herein intervenor MMIPADMA relies heavily on

its alleged claim and relief for the surface rights and royalty shares, among
others, against herein respondent APEX Mining Co., Inc. MMIPADMA even
questionably asserted that it has better right to claim and receive the same for
and in behalf of the Mansaka tribe in Maco, Compostela Valley. Thus, it must
be pointed out that the declarations of MMIPADMA in its COMPLAINT-IN-
INTERVENTION dated March 13, 2014 that it is entitled to claim for the
surface rights and royalty shares against herein respondent APEX Mining Co.,
Inc. is highly questionable, misleading and has NO legal basis at all!

8
 4.2 While MMIPADMA wants to make it appear that it is entitled to
receive the said monetary benefits, among others, against APEX Mining Co.,
Inc., yet it failed to provide any legal basis to justify the same unlike herein
complainant MADCI, which has fully and sufficiently established its valid
and/or legal claims against herein respondent APEX Mining, Co., Inc. by the
quantum of proof required in this proceeding before the Honorable Office,
that is substantial evidence pursuant to Section 73 of NCIP Administrative
Circular No. 1, Series of 2003 entitled: “Rules on Pleadings, Practice and
Procedure Before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples,” quoted
hereunder in toto for reference in this wise; thus:

“Section 73. Quantum of Evidence. Substantial

evidence is necessary to establish a claim or defense under
these rules.”

4.3 Herein intervenor MMIPADMA merely presented self-serving

allegations and sweeping generalizations in its COMPLAINT-IN-
INTERVENTION dated March 13, 2014. It clearly appears that MMIPADMA
has not adduced persuasive evidence to prove its claim, as it only presented
bare allegations without any probative value at all!

4.4 Hence, for record purposes, herein complainant MADCI hereby

strongly interposes its vehement objection and/or opposition against the
questioned COMPLAINT-IN INTERVENTION dated March 13, 2014 of
MMIPADMA being contrary to the sporting idea of fair play and dictates of
substantial justice. MMIPADMA is NOT included NOR a recognized entity in
the ANCESTRAL DOMAIN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTECTION PLAN (ADSDPP), which was duly approved and has been
recognized by the Honorable National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP) whose legal foundation is premised on Section 13, Chapter IV of
Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts of 1997, or IPRA Law for brevity. Thus,
MMIPADMA must NOT be impleaded as a party in this case before arriving
at any decision. There can always be a valid resolution/decision even if
MMIPADMA is not impleaded as a party in this case.

9
 4.5 In fact, MADCI is categorically defined in Paragraph (m), Section
5, Chapter 1, Part III of the subject ANCESTRAL DOMAIN SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION PLAN (ADSDPP) in this wise; thus:

“(m) Maco Ancestral Domain Council, Inc. (MADCI)

is a federated indigenous community based organization of
the Barangay Tribal Councils of Elders/Leaders of the
Mansaka tribe of Maco responsible in the formulation and
implementation of policies and in the management of the
affairs of the ancestral domain of the Mansaka tribe in
Maco.”

4.6 Not only that but also the valid claims of herein complainant
MADCI for Royalty Shares and Surface Rights against the respondent is
likewise legally anchored on this ADSDPP. Notably, Section 11, Chapter 7
entitled: “Benefit Sharing Scheme” of the said ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION PLAN (ADSDPP)
explicitly provides that:

“Section 11. Sources of Benefits. The sources of

benefits are but not limited to the Royalty Fee, Surface Right
Fee, and other revenues that could be generated by the
MADCI from the ancestral domain area or from external
sources such as grants or dole outs. xxx” (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)

4.7 In order to implement the above-mentioned benefit sharing

scheme, there shall be a determination of actual IP applicants by MADCI over
the land utilized by the company in accordance with Section 12, Chapter 7 of
the aforesaid ANCESTRAL DOMAIN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTECTION PLAN (ADSDPP). In addition, based on Section 12
thereof, the proceeds from surface rights in those areas previously occupied
by the non-IPs prior to the occupation of the Company, Corporations or a
business entity shall go directly to the general fund of MADCI. Chapter 7
also provides the sharing for MADCI out the surface rights as: 30% shall be
allocated to operational expenses covering administrative and personnel

10
services expenses and 70% shall be allocated for funding programs and
projects in the investment plan of ADSDPP.

4.8 Moreover, the same ADSDPP likewise specifically defines the

organizational structure of herein complainant MADCI. The Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) holder of the ancestral domain in the
Municipality of Maco instituted the Maco Ancestral Domain Council, Inc.
(MADCI) as indigenous people organization in the formulation and
implementation of policies and management of the affairs of ancestral domain
of the Mansaka tribe in Maco. As an organization, in a strictest sense,
MADCI constitutes the federation of Barangay Tribal Councils (BTCLs) of
the twenty-six barangays covered within the ancestral domain of the
Mansaka tribe in Maco. The composition of MADCI comprises all
barangay tribal chieftains as council members and is headed by the
President or Chairman.

4.9 Of equal bearing and probative weight, two (2) of the authorized
representatives/officers of herein complainant MADCI in the persons of Datu
Rolando Casigloman and Datu Sayongan Insog are signatories of the
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) dated June 16, 2004 duly
executed by APEX Mining Co., Inc. subject matter of the instant Specific
Performance case. It bears stressing that the object of the instant Specific
Performance case is to compel the other contracting party under the
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) dated June 16, 2004 that is herein
respondent APEX Mining Co., Inc. to comply fully with its contractual
obligations.

4.10 This is actually a suit previously filed to obtain an enforcement of

a valid contract and only the contracting parties can validly invoke it. Any
other third party, such as MMIPADMA in the instant case, could not legally
avail of this remedy much less to intervene. The Supreme Court is even
emphatic on this matter in Cabutihan vs. Land Center Construction &
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 146594, June 10, 2002 while citing

11
Villamil vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 643 and Ralleza vs. Court of
Appeals, 174 SCRA 354, by declaring that “Breach of contract gives rise to a
cause of action for Specific Performance or for Rescission.” As such, this is a
PERSONAL ACTION and only the aggrieved contracting party may avail of
it. As a matter of right, complainant MADCI opted to file the instant case for
Specific Performance against herein respondent APEX Mining Co., Inc. With
all due respect, the intervention of non-contracting parties such as
MMIPADMA, among others, in the instant case is NOT proper.

OPPOSITION TO THE CROSSCLAIMS

5.1 QUI JURE SUA NEMINEN LAEDIT. He who uses his own legal
right injures no one. (Dosch vs. NLRC, 123 SCRA 296). ALL IN GOOD
FAITH, herein complainant MADCI, through its authorized officers and
members, had instituted this complaint to assert their rights and claim for
what is due to them under the law, MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
(MOA) dated June 16, 2004 in relation to the Ancestral Domain Sustainable
Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP), as well as extant jurisprudence.

5.2 The civil liabilities of respondent APEX Mining Co., Inc., in

relation to this present case, arose from its unjustifiable failure to fulfill or
comply with its contractual obligations to pay the Mansaka tribe through
MADCI the stipulated royalty shares and surface rights under the subject
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated June 16, 2004 in relation to the
Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP).
The cross claims then of MMIPADMA in the assailed pleading for
intervention do not have any legal leg to stand on and thus, they must be
denied outright for utter lack of merit under the surrounding circumstances.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

12
 Complainant repleads and reiterates the foregoing allegations and
respectfully moves for the DISMISSAL and/or DENIAL of the COMPLAINT-
IN-INTERVENTION dated March 13, 2012 based on the following grounds:

5. MMIPADMA is NOT a real party-in-interest NOR an

indispensable party in the instant case.

5.1 It is very clear that MMIPADMA is NOT a REAL PARTY-IN-

INTEREST in this case. NEITHER is it an INDISPENSABLE PARTY. Thus,
INTERVENTION is NOT the proper remedy.

5.2 As the Supreme Court aptly defined it, “intervention is a

procedure by which a third person, not originally party to the suit, but
claiming an interest in the subject matter, comes into the case, in order to
protect his right or interpose a claim (Union Bank of the Philippines vs.
Concepcion, 525 SCRA 672).

5.3 On the other hand, a real party-in-interest is briefly defined by

the Supreme Court in the case of Consumido vs. Ros (525 SCRA 522) as “one
who has a legal right.” More comprehensively, it is better described “as a
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of a suit. An association has a standing to file
suit for its members despite lack of interest if the members are directly
affected by the action” (Godinez vs. Court of Appeals, 516 SCRA 24;
Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya vs. Mosquera, 518 SCRA 658; Eurotech
Industrial Technologies, Inc. vs. Cuizon, 521 SCRA 584). In the case of Royo
vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (539 SCRA 571), the Supreme
Court held that:

“A real party- in-interest is one with a “present

substantial interest” which means such interest of a party in
the subject matter of the action as will entitle hum, under
substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient, or that
he has the legal right to demand.”

13
 5.4 Corollary thereto, indispensable parties are “those with such
interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their
rights so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence - all of them
must be included in a suit for an action to prosper or for a final
determination to be had” (Department of Budget and Management
Procurement Service vs. Kolonwel Trading, 524 SCRA 591).

5.5 The intervenor is not even a proper party in the instant

proceedings. Section 21, Rule VI of NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1,
Series of 2003, which explicitly states that:

“RULE VI- PARTIES TO ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS.

xxx

Section 21.Proper Parties. The parties to any case or proceeding

before the RHO or the Commission may be natural or juridical
persons and other entities authorized by law. xxx”
(Underscoring supplied)

5.6 Clearly then, in order to be a proper party in the proceeding

before the Honorable Regional Hearing Officer (RHO), one has to be either a
natural person, a juridical person or an entity authorized by law, though not
necessarily a juridical person. As to how MMIPADMA gained its existence as
an organization of an indigenous people is immaterial in the instant case. It
must be so because the subject matter in this controversy is the
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) dated June 16, 2004 entered into
by and between APEX Mining Co., Inc. and herein complainant MADCI
alone.

5.7 The alleged reorganization within MADCI based on the General

Assembly (GA) Resolution presented by MMIPADMA in the assailed
COMPLAINT-IN- INTERVENTION dated March 13, 2014 and the purported
non-existence of MADCI after this reported reorganization is nothing but a
squid tactic meant to mislead the Honorable Regional Hearing Office on the
execution and validity of the subject MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
(MOA) dated June 16, 2004. It must be so because MADCI has sufficiently

14
proven by substantial evidence in their COMPLAINT dated November 11,
2012 that it still exists as a legitimate organization of indigenous people (IP)
representing the Mansaka tribe in Maco, Compostela Valley.

5.8 In the instant case, the intervenor failed to show that it was
conferred by operation of law a juridical personality. NEITHER did it show
that, though it lacks juridical personality, MMIPADMA is nevertheless
authorized by law or the said MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)
dated June 16, 2004 to appear as a party in any action or proceeding before the
Honorable Regional Hearing Officer (RHO).

5.9 Moreover, MMIPADMA even failed to show and prove its

interests in the instant proceeding. Section 22 of the same Rule VI of NCIP
Administrative Circular No. 1, Series of 2003 is instructive on this matter:

“Section 22. Real Party in Interest. Every case must be

prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in
interest who shall sue as “plaintiff” or “petitioner” for the
complainant and in the case of the person being sued, shall be
joined as “defendant” or “respondent.”(Underscoring supplied.)

5.10 In the assailed pleading for Intervention, MMIPADMA just

generally alleges that it “has a legal interest in the matter under litigation.”
But MMIPADMA failed to specify or prove by substantial evidence as to what
interest it specifically has in the subject matter of the instant controversy.
Seemingly, MMIPADMA would want to make an impression upon the
Honorable Regional Hearing Office (RHO) to take its words for it and leave
everything to imagination. Certainly, the rules of a judicial or quasi-judicial
proceeding such as the instant case do not allow this questionable
intervention in order to protect the integrity of the whole process.

5.11 It is glaring that the intervenor does NOT have any substantial
legal right in this case in its capacity as a purported member of an indigenous
people. MMIPADMA does NOT stand to be injured by whatever decision in
this case considering the fact that it is NOT a party/signatory of the

15
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) dated June 16, 2004 entered into
by and between APEX Mining Co., Inc. and herein complainant MADCI
subject matter of the instant case representing the ICC’s of Mansaka tribe in
Maco, Compostela Valley. More importantly, MMIPADMA is NOT an
INDISPENSABLE PARTY because any resolution in this case will not
necessarily affect its interests or rights, if any.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

Herein complainant MADCI further reiterates and incorporates the

foregoing discussions and prays:

6.1 By reason of the filing of this baseless and malicious

COMPLAINT-INTERVENTION dated March 13, 2012 by MMIPADMA
represented by Datu Daniel G. Calibadan who knew or ought to have known
that MMIPADMA is not a real party-in-interest, the respondent suffered
actual damages and pecuniary loss of at least Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00). MMIPADMA should be ordered to pay the complainant actual,
moderate or temperate damage of at least P100,000.00;

6.2 MMIPADMA publicly accused the complainant of false and

baseless claims of some wrongful, unjust or illegal acts. Herein complainant
MADCI had always tried to give everyone their due and had always
respected the rights and privacy of others. Because of these, MMIPADMA
should be made to solidarily pay Moral Damages of at least Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) to considering, considering its social stature
and unblemished records;

6.3 By initiating this malicious and unfounded action in the instant

controversy, MMIPADMA violated the right to peace and engage in the
lawful pursuit and exercise of the rights and peaceful enjoyment of the
property of herein complainant MADCI. Thus, MMIPADMA should be

16
ordered to pay MADCI Nominal Damages of at least One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00);

6.4. With their unfair and perjurous claims that the complainant
committed illegal and malicious acts by this baseless and/or unfounded suit
which fomented anxieties, untold worries and moral shock particularly to
herein complainant, MMIPADMA acted with wanton, reckless, oppressive
and malevolent manner. By way of example for the public good, complainant
should be ordered to solidarily pay the defendant Exemplary Damages of at
least One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00);

6.5 When served with a copy of the COMPLAINT-IN-

INTERVENTION and faced with intervenor’s inequitable acts and malicious
accusations, complainant was left with no other recourse but to engage the
services of counsel, to represent and assist them, at an agreed professional fee
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), plus appearance fee of Two Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (P2,500.00) for every appearance or hearing before the
Honorable Office, and to incur expenses of litigation in the amount of at least
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), to protect their rights and redress their
legitimate grievances. MMIPADMA should be ordered to pay such attorney’s
fees and litigation expenses.

6.6 Finally, this ANSWER is filed in good faith based on the

foregoing reasons without any intention to unduly delay the proceedings of
this case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES,

Complainant MACO ANCESTRAL DOMAIN COUNCIL, INC. (MADCI),
represented by DATU ROLANDO M. CASIGLOMAN, ET AL., through the
undersigned counsel, most respectfully prays unto the Honorable Regional
Hearing Office that:

17
 1. This ANSWER be CONSIDERED and GIVEN DUE COURSE;

2. An ORDER be immediately issued denying the COMPLAINT-

IN-INTERVENTION dated March 13, 2014;

3. An ORDER be issued GRANTING the COUNTERCLAIMS of the

complainant MADCI and DENYING the CROSSCLAIMS of MMIPADMA;

4. After due notice and hearing, JUDGMENT be rendered against

the respondent, ordering the same to pay or recompense the complainant
with the following amounts:

A. FORTY SIX MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN

THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY TWO AND 30/100 PESOS
(P46,997,892.30), Philippine currency, plus legal interests thereon,
representing the unpaid ROYALTY SHARES, for gold and silver production
as ACTUAL DAMAGES;

B. SIXTY EIGHT MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN

THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY TWO AND 30/100 PESOS
(P68,997,892.30), Philippine currency, more or less, plus legal interests thereon,
representing the unpaid and/or unsettled compensation for SURFACE RIGHTS as
ACTUAL DAMAGES;

C. THIRTY MILLION PESOS (P30,000,000.00), Philippine currency,

representing the lost income of the complainant and/or lost revenues for the
indigenous cultural communities in Maco, Compostela Valley (LUCRUM
CESSANS); and,

D. TWENTY MILLION PESOS (P20,000,000.00) as EXEMPLARY

DAMAGES;

E. Attorney’s Fees amounting to TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%) of the

total sue due from the respondents and LITIGATION EXPENSES in the amount of
SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00), with FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P5,000.00) as APPEARANCE FEE, for every case hearing or appearance..

18
 Other just and equitable reliefs under the surrounding circumstances are
likewise prayed for.

Davao City, Philippines, September 16, 2014.

LOPOZ ADIN & YAP

LAW FIRM
Counsel for Complainant MADCI

3rd Floor, Agdao Multi-Purpose Cooperative Green Bldg.

Corner Nicasio Torres & Princess Urduja Streets
Bo. Obrero, Davao City

Fax Phone No.: (082) 305-23-09; Tel. No.: (082) 300-05-05

By:

JAIME M. LOPOZ, JR.

Roll No. 42422
PTR No. 3641945; Davao City; Jan. 3, 2014
IBP Lifetime Member No. 010260
MCLE Compliance No. III – 0020206
Issued on March 3, 2011
MCLE Compliance No. IV – 0013046
Issued on February 27, 2013

NOTICE/SUBMISSION

THE HONORABLE ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
REGIONAL HEARING OFFICE, Region XI
E. Valeroso Bldg., E. B. Lopez St., Sandawa Plaza
SIR Matina, Davao City

ATTY. JENNIFER M. MELENDEZ

Counsel of MMIPADMA
MELENDEZ, NAMOC & MELODIAS LAW OFFICES
Doors 2 & 3, 2nd Floor, Lam Building
F. Torres Street, Davao City

GREETINGS:

19
 PLEASE take notice that the foregoing ANSWER will be submitted by
the undersigned counsel, as it is hereby submitted, for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Office, without further appearance and oral
arguments of counsel.

JAIME M. LOPOZ, JR.

EXPLANATION FOR FILING AND SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

Copies of the foregoing ANSWER have been filed with the Honorable
Office and served to the counsel of MMIPADMA both by registered mail due
to distance constraints, lack of personnel and the impracticability of personal
service.

JAIME M. LOPOZ, JR.

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JENNIFER M. MELENDEZ Registry Receipt No.: _________

Counsel of MMIPADMA Date: ___________________________
MELENDEZ, NAMOC & MELODIAS LAW OFFICES
Doors 2 & 3, 2nd Floor, Lam Building
F. Torres Street, Davao City

20