National Commission On Indigenous Peoples: Answer To The Complaint-In-Intervention Dated March 13, 2014
National Commission On Indigenous Peoples: Answer To The Complaint-In-Intervention Dated March 13, 2014
National Commission On Indigenous Peoples: Answer To The Complaint-In-Intervention Dated March 13, 2014
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---------------------------------------------------------/
1
ADMISSIONS
DENIALS
SPECIFIC DENIALS
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.;
2.4 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.;
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;
2.9 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;
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;
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;
2.21 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;
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;
2.28 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
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;
3.14 All paragraphs under the heading: “Cause of Action and Cross-
Claim against SIMI”
AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS
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:
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:
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:
10
services expenses and 70% shall be allocated for funding programs and
projects in the investment plan of ADSDPP.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
xxx
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).
5.11 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
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);
PRAYER
17
1. This ANSWER be CONSIDERED and GIVEN DUE COURSE;
18
Other just and equitable reliefs under the surrounding circumstances are
likewise prayed for.
By:
NOTICE/SUBMISSION
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.
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.
Copy furnished:
20