LIM v.

GAMOSA (2015)
Perez, J. | Primary Jurisdiction v. Preliminary Resort

Petitioners: ENGINEER BEN LIM, RBL FISHING CORPORATION, PALAWAN

AQUACULTURE CORPORATION, and PENINSULA SHIPYARD CORPORATION
Respondents: HON. SULPICIO GAMOSA, Officer-in-Charge, NCIP REGIONAL
HEARING OFFICE, REGION IV and TAGBANUA INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITY OF BARANGAY BUENAVISTA, CORON, PALAWAN, as represented by
FERNANDO AGUIDO, ERNESTO CINCO, BOBENCIO MOSQUERA, JURRY
CARPIANO, VICTOR BALBUTAN, NORDITO ALBERTO, EDENG PESRO, CLAUDINA
BAQUID, NONITA SALVA, and NANCHITA ALBERTO

Summary: Respondents filed a complaint before the NCIP alleging that petitioners
intruded into their ancestral land. Petitioners filed an MTD, alleging, among others, lack
of jurisdiction as they (petitioners) are not members of indigenous communities. This was
denied, with NCIP asserting that it has original, exclusive, and primary jurisdiction in all
cases and instances where the claim or dispute involves rights of IPs/ICCs. SC reverses,
ruling that the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) did not specifically characterize
NCIP’s jurisdiction as such. NCIP’s jurisdiction over claims and disputes occur only when
they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP.
Doctrine: Several (refer to “Issues, Ratio”). However, re: primary jurisdiction:
 Primary jurisdiction does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction.

Facts
 Respondent Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community of Coron, Palawan filed a
petition before National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) against
petitioners for alleged “Violation of Rights to Free and Prior and Informed Consent
(FPIC) and Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion”.
 Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petition because they are not members of the Indigenous Cultural Communities.
 NCIP, in denying the MTD, squarely ruled that it had jurisdiction over the petition
filed by respondents.
 Petitioners went to CA via petition for certiorari. CA affirms NCIP in its interpretation
that the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the NCIP is primary, original and exclusive,
in all cases and instances where the claim or dispute involves rights of IPs/ICCs,
without regard to whether one of the parties is non-IP/ICC. Hence this Rule 45
petition to SC.
Issues, Ratio
WON NCIP has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case – NO
(1) NCIP’s Administrative Order 1, s. 2014 characterizing its jurisdiction as original
and exclusive is VOID
 Sec. 66 of IPRA: “The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have
jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs:
Provided, however, that no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless
the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary
laws. xxx”
 Section 66 does not endow the NCIP with primary and/or exclusive and
original jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs.
Following the ruling in Unduran v. Aberasturi, NCIP’s jurisdiction over
such claims and disputes occur only when they arise between or
among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP.
o Section 66 did not use the words “primary” and/or “original and
exclusive” to describe the jurisdiction of the NCIP over “all claims and
disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs”.
o Even the IPRA itself recognizes that customs and customary law
cannot be applied to non-IPs/ICCs since ICCs/IPs are recognized as
a distinct sector of Philippine society.
o The expertise and competence of the NCIP cover only the
implementation and the enforcement of the IPRA and customs and
customary law of specific ICCs/IPs; the NCIP does not have
competence to determine rights, duties and obligations of non-
ICCs/IPs under other laws although such may also involve rights of
ICCs/IPs.
(2) No primary jurisdiction
 If it were the intention that: (1) the NCIP exercise primary jurisdiction over,
and/or (2) the regular courts be excluded from taking cognizance of, claims
involving rights of ICCs/IPs, the legislature could have easily done so as in
other instances conferring primary, and original and exclusive jurisdiction to
a specific administrative body.
 Primary jurisdiction is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or
by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its
specific competence. The doctrine prevents the court from arrogating unto
itself the authority to resolve a controversy which falls under the jurisdiction
of a tribunal possessed with special competence.
 Primary jurisdiction does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction. It
applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into
play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues
which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special
competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is
 suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its
view.
 As an illustration: The Ombudsman Act specifically provides that “the
Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take
over, at any stage, from any investigating agency of the government, the
investigation of such cases.”
o This means that the authority of Ombudsman to investigate offenses
involving public officers or employees is concurrent with other
government investigating agencies such as provincial, city and state
prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman, in exercise of its primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take
over, at any stage, from any investigating agency of government, the
investigation of such cases.
 The IPRA does not contain a repeal of BP 129 limiting the general
jurisdiction of the trial courts even as it purportedly grants the NCIP
jurisdiction over “all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs.”

Whether the complaint of respondents complied with Rule 8, Rules of Court – NO

 Rule 8, Sec. 1: “every pleading to contain in a methodical and logical form,
a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the
statement of mere evidentiary facts.”
 Respondents’ petition does not mention ultimate facts that lead to the
conclusion that (1) they are Tagbanuas, and (2) they are the representatives
of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community. Neither are there
allegations of ultimate facts showing acts or omissions on the part of
petitioners which constitute a violation of respondents’ rights. Also, the right
of ancestral property requires historical proof which, of course, must
proceed from allegations in the petition
GRANTED.