G.R. No. 188913 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY CITY MAYOR REINALDO A. BAUTISTA, JR., VS. ATTY. BRAIN S. MASWENG.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, a Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Section 69 (d) of R.A. [No.] 8371 in relation to Section 83 of NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1, series of 2003 is hereby issued against the respondents namely, CITY OF BAGUIO represented by City Mayor REINALDO BAUTISTA JR., CITY BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURE OFFICE represented by OSCAR FLORES and all persons under their instructions and acting for and in their behalves are hereby ordered to stay and refrain from implementing Demolition Advice dated May 20, 2009, Demolition Order No. 33 series of 2005, Demolition Advice dated July 20, 2009 and Demolition Order No. 69 series of 2002 within Seventy Two (72) Hours upon receipt of this order on the residential houses/structures of Alexander Ampaguey Sr., Julio Daluyen Sr., Concep[c]ion Padang and Carmen Panayo all located at Busol Water Reservation, Baguio City. [21] In NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09, petitioner and the City Building and Architecture Office, represented by Oscar Flores; Public Safety and Order Division, represented by Gregorio Deligero; the Baguio Demolition Team, represented by Engr. Nazeta Banez; and all persons under their instructions were ordered to refrain from demolishing the residential structures of Magdalena Gumangan, Marion Pool, Lourdes Hermogeno, Bernardo Simon, Joseph Legaspi, Joseph Basatan, Marcelino Basatan, Josephine Legaspi and Lansigan Bawas located at Busol Water Reservation. Subsequently, respondent issued two separate Orders [22] both dated July 31, 2009 in NCIP Case Nos. 29-CAR-09 and 31-CAR-09 extending the 72-hour temporary restraining orders for another 17 days. On August 14, 2009, respondent issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction [23] in NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09, followed by a Writ of Preliminary Injunction [24] in NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09. Hence, this petition asserting that the restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction were issued in willful disregard, disobedience, defiance and resistance of this Courts Decision in G.R. No. 180206 which dismissed the previous injunction case. Petitioner contends that respondents act of enjoining the execution of the demolition orders and demolition advices is tantamount to allowing forum shopping since the implementation of the demolition orders over the structures in the Busol Forest Reservation had already been adjudicated and affirmed by this Court. In his Comment, [25] respondent claims that he issued the restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction in NCIP Case Nos. 31-CAR-09 and 29-CAR-09 because his jurisdiction was called upon to protect and preserve the rights of the petitioners (in the NCIP cases) who were undoubtedly members of the indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples. He avers that his personal judgment and assessment of the allegations of the parties in their pleadings, as supported by their attachments, convinced him that the petitioners therein were entitled to such restraining orders and writs of injun