You are on page 1of 5

228 Province of Camarines Norte vs.

Quezon
G.R. No. 132885 (October 11, 2001)
J. Sandoval-Gutierrez / RLS

SUBJECT MATTER: Other Provisions Applicable to Local Government Units > Settlement of Boundary Disputes

CASE SUMMARY: A 1989 SC decision settled the land boundary dispute between Camarines Norte and Quezon. As a
consequence, 9 barangays previously located in Calauag, Quezon became part of Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte. The decision
ordered the Government to undertake a survey in accordance with a 1922 decision of the Executive Board –which was upheld
by the SC as basis for the delineation of the boundary. Upon request of Camarines Norte Governor Padilla, DENR sent a survey
team, which laid down a boundary marker. In Oct. 1991, Calauag Mayor Lim and Quezon Governor Rodriguez ordered the
bulldozing and removal of the boundary marker. Padilla responded by filing a contempt charge against the Quezon officials.
Pending resolution of that case, COMELEC and other agencies of the Executive branch issued directives recognizing the
jurisdiction of Camarines Norte over the 9 disputed barangays. Specifically, NSO transferred jurisdiction to the civil registrar of
Sta. Elena; DBM transferred the IRAs of the 9 barangays to Sta. Elena; realty tax records were also ordered transferred; and the
COMELEC authorized the Sta. Elena election officer to change the addresses of the registered voters in the 9 barangays.
Quezon Government thus filed a petition for certiorari assailing the COMELEC resolutions authorizing the transfer of the voter
registration records in the 9 barangays. This petition was consolidated with the contempt charge. CA Justice ordered to hear the
contempt case found sufficient basis to cite Rodriguez and Lim in contempt for willful disregard of the 1989 SC decision, by
contumaciously asserting their own interpretation of the boundary line and by having the DENR-installed marker removed. SC
concurred with the CA. Rodriguez was guilty of willful disregard of a final and executory SC decision. He even said in his
demurrer to the contempt charge that they would not have ordered the removal of the marker had the SC decided the case in the
way Quezon wanted it decided. SC has rejected their argument with finality and they must act accordingly. Quezon cannot
invoke the plebiscite requirements under LGC 10 and the Constitution because the boundary delineation was merely an
implementation of Sec. 42, Art. II of the RAC, as interpreted by the 1922 EB decision, which was upheld by the SC in 1989.
Neither can the law creating Sta. Elena be invoked, because the definition of Sta. Elena’s territory in that law was subject to the
delineation of the Quezon-Camarines Norte boundary, which was to be determined by the DENR by undertaking the SC-
mandated survey. Governor Rodriguez and Mayor Lim were held guilty of indirect contempt. COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in ordering the transfer of the voter registration records of the 9 barangays because it was merely complying
with the SC decision. Instead of being punished, they should be commended for doing so.
DOCTRINE/S:

The 1922 decision of the Chief of the Executive Bureau did not alter or redefine or amend an existing provincial boundary, the
boundary line between Ambos Camarines and Tayabas (now Quezon Province). All that the Chief of the Executive Bureau did
was to implement, upon the authority of the Secretary of Interior, Section 42 of Act No. 2711. Necessarily, the argument on the
noncompliance with the plebiscite requirement under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, as well as Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 7160, is misplaced.

What was involved in this case is not a setting or resetting of an existing provincial boundary but the implementation of a
decision clarifying a law which set a provincial boundary in an ambiguous or partial manner: “Section 42 (Article II, Revised
Administrative Code of 1917) does set out a definition or description of the boundary line between Ambos Camarines and
Quezon Province.[However, it] does not describe or define the entirety of that line in such a manner as to permit the whole
boundary line to be located on the ground by a surveyor. Close examination of Section 42 will show that it is not the whole
boundary line that is disputed but only a segment thereof.” Where there is clear and contumacious defiance of, or refusal to
obey an SC decision, it will not hesitate to exercise the inherent power [of contempt] if only to maintain respect for the SC, for
without which the administration of justice may falter or fail.

Action before SC: PETITION to Cite in Contempt and Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court.

Petitioner: PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE, Represented by Hon. Roy A. Padilla, Jr., as Provincial Governor
Respondent: PROVINCE OF QUEZON, Represented by Hon. Eduardo T. Rodriguez, as Provincial Governor

FACTS:
 March 2014: Goh filed petition against Mayor Bayron dues to loss of trust and confidence for his gross violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

 Nov. 8, 1989 – SC rendered a decision in GR No. 80796 (1989 decision) resolving the long-standing [since the Spanish
period] boundary dispute between Camarines Norte (CAMNOR) and Quezon in favor of the former.
The decision stated in part: “Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Local Governments and the
Office of the President with the request that surveyors from the Bureau of Lands or other appropriate government agency be
forthwith designated to survey and locate, by latitude and longitude and by metes and bounds, and to monument the Basiad
Bay-Mt. Cadig line described in the 16 June 1922 decision of the Chief of the Executive Bureau.[1922 DECISION]”

 Mar. 19, 1990 - The 1989 decision became final and executory.
o Pursuant to the directive of the SC, CamNor governor Roy PADILLA asked the DENR Secretary to undertake
the survey of the Quezon-Camnor boundary line based on the description in the 1922 decision.
 DENR Secretary Fulgencio FACTORAN, Jr., thus issued Special Order 1179 constituting a technical working group for the
purpose.
o Jan. 31, 1991 – The DENR team informed Quezon Governor Eduardo RODRIGUEZ about the upcoming
 survey.
o Quezon Provincial Secretary Jorge VARGAS objected to the use of the 1922 decision as the basis of the
survey, asserting that it should be done on the basis of the conditions set forth in Art. II, §42 of the Revised
 Administrative Code of 1917 (Act 2711).
o The DENR team proceeded with the survey anyway, using the 1922 decision as basis.
o May 28, 1991 – The DENR team went to Brgy. Tabugon, Calauag, Quezon and installed a monument marker
along the boundary line determined in the survey.
 The marker indicated that the area of 8,032 hectares actually falls within the jurisdiction of CamNor.
 The area comprises 9 barangays: Kagtalaba, Plaridel, Kabuluan, Don Tomas, Guitol, Tabugon,
Maualawin, PatagIbaba, and PatagIraya.
o Oct. 14, 1991 – Rodriguez and Calauag Mayor Julio LIM had the boundary marker bulldozed and removed.
 The event was covered by the Manila Bulletin.
o In response, Padilla filed a petition for contempt in the SC against Rodriguez and Lim for disobedience
 to a SC decision, which is punishable as indirect contempt under ROC 71§3.
 COMMENT OF RODRIGUEZ & LIM on contempt petition: The placing of the marker is illegal as it
was installed within Calauag territory and because the DENR team lacked prior authority from the
Office of the President, as required by the 1989 decision. Their action was a reasonable use of force
under NCC 429 to protect Quezon territory from a threatened physical invasion.
o SC resolved to direct CA Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy to conduct hearings, receive evidence, and submit a report
and recommendation on the contempt proceedings.
 After CamNor rested its case, Rodriguez filed a demurrer, contending that the 1989 decision cannot be
implemented in the light of RAC 42 and RA 5480 (which created the Municipality of Sta. Elena in
CamNor). The demurrer was denied.
 Upon retirement of Justice Sempio-Diy, the case was assigned to CA Justice TeodoroRegino.
o Pending the contempt proceedings in the CA, the DBM transferred the Internal Revenue Allotment of the 9
barangays from Calauag to Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte starting in Fiscal Year 1994.
o During the May 6, 1996 SK elections, COMELEC sent the election paraphernalia of the 9 barangays to Sta.
 Elena. COMELEC also issued a resolution directing the Calauag Election Officer to refrain from exercising supervision
over political exercises in the 9 barangays.
 The Civil Registrar General likewise issued a Memorandum informing the Calauag Civil Registrar that registration of vital
events occurring in the 9 barangays should now be registered with the Sta. Elena Civil Registrar.
 March 18, 1997 – the Department of Finance directed the Quezon Provincial Treasurer and the Provincial Assessor to
transfer the realty tax records of the 9 barangays to CamNor.
 Jul. 10, 1997 – COMELEC issued a resolution authorizing the Sta. Elena Election Officer to change the address in the
voting registration records of the 9 barangays from Calauag, Quezon to Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte; and to notify the
registered voters concerned of such change in address.
 Sep. 12, 1997 – The Sangguniang Bayan of Calauag passed a resolution opposing the Jul. 10 COMELEC resolution.
 Nov. 27, 1997 – COMELEC resolved to note the Calauag SB resolution and deny it with finality.
 Quezon filed a petition for certiorari with the SC, which was consolidated with the contempt petition.
 May 3, 2000 - Justice Regino submitted his report and recommendation in the contempt case.
o Rodriguez and Lim are guilty of contempt of court and should be sentenced to maximum penalty of 6 months
imprisonment and P1000 fine; and be ordered to shoulder the cost of installing a new boundary marker to
replace the one they had removed.

ISSUE/S AND HOLDING:


 WON Rodriguez and Lim are guilty of contempt of court - YES
 WON COMELEC committed GAD in issuing the resolutions assailed by Quezon - NO

RATIO:

 The Constitution (Sec. 2 par.1, Art. IX-C) expressly proved the COMELEC with the power to enforce all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

BULLDOZING & REMOVAL OF MARKER WAS DISOBEDIENCE OF 1989 SC DECISION; RODRIGUEZ & LIM (RL)
GUILTY OF CONTEMPT

 Regino Report Findings


o RL’s act of removing the monument marker amounts to contumacious conduct defined under ROC 71§3(b),
which declares contemptuous any "disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment
or command of a court."
o The installation of the boundary marker was in compliance with the 1989 SC decision, which made the 1922
decision the basis of the boundary line.
o o RL have a long record of resisting CamNor’s claim to the disputed area.
o o RL’s contumacious refusal was made with full understanding that their acts would fall under contempt, as
evinced by the following statement made in their demurrer: “The whole case would have been different if
factually the territory defined in the (1922) Decision of the Executive Bureau conformed with the prescription
of Section 42 (of Article II, Revised Administrative Code of 1917)”

 SC agrees with Justice Regino’s findings. In effect, Rodriguez was saying in the demurrer that they would not have
removed the boundary marker had the SC decided the case on the basis on RAC Art. II, Sec. 42.

 This is an act of defiance of the 1989 decision, where it was ruled with finality that RAC Art. II, Sec. 42 did not define the
entirety of the CamNor-Quezon boundary line in such a manner as to permit the whole boundary line to be located on the
ground by a surveyor.

 Pertinent part of the 1989 SC decision: "It is pointed out by [CamNor], firstly, that the particular point onBasiad Bay that is
the terminus of the boundary line is not specifically identified in Section 42, considering that the eastern shore of Basiad
Bay is 25 kilometers in length, more or less, such that that terminal point could in theory be located anywhere along the 25-
kilometer shore line. Secondly, the specific direction or directions and the varying lengths (the 'metes and bounds') of the
various segments of the boundary line to be projected from the terminus point on Basiad Bay onto Mt. Cadig's peak, are
similarly not specified in Section 42. Thus, again, a surveyor on the ground would be unable to locate and monument the
boundary line from Basiad Bay to Mt. Cadig if all he had was the language found in Section 42 of the Revised
Administrative Code.

 "We agree with [CamNor]'s argument. We consider that to that limited extent, the Ambos Camarines Quezon boundary line
was `undefined' and that there was thus necessity for the 16 June 22 decision of the Chief of the Executive Bureau to
provide more specific guidance that would permit the actual identification or location of the Basiad Bay-Mt. Cadig portion
of the boundary line between Ambos Camarines and Quezon Province: '[from the peak of Mt. Cadig] thence a straight line
is drawn to the point of intersection of the interprovincial road between Camarines Norte and Tayabas (now Quezon) with
the Tabugon River, thence following the course of the river to each mouth at the Basiad Bay.'"
 The 1989 SC decision clearly upheld the validity and binding effect of the 1922 decision of the Executive Bureau. Despite
this, RL stubbornly insist on their own interpretation of what should be the correct boundary line.

 This willful disregard of the SC decision was demonstrated by RL’s causing the removal of the boundary marker installed
by the DENR.

 Counsels for Quezon have already been reprimanded by the SC for insisting on the applicability of RAC Art. II, Sec. 42, as
a tactic to delay the implementation of the 1989 SC decision.

 SC said: “This Court does not, as it cannot, always expect counsel of losing litigants graciously to accept the correctness of
the decisions of this Court. But when such decisions reach finality, it is the duty of such counsel as officers of the Court and
members of the Bar to obey those decisions, whatever their personal opinion may be in respect of the merits of the
decisions. It is, of course, open to the respondents herein to seek to change those decisions they disagree with by going to
the Congress of the Philippines to try to secure the enactment of a statute changing the boundary line already declared
legally binding by this Court. Until such a statute is enacted, however, respondents owe a special duty faithfully and
honestly to comply with final decisions of this Court. The Court cannot countenance any further disregard of this duty. It is
of essence of an ordered and civilized community that the function of final resolution of disputes be located in a particular
institution. In our system, that institution is this Court.”
Quezon cannot invoke RA 5480 [creating the Municipaliy of Sta. Elena] .

 Sec.1 of that law, defined the territory of Sta. Elena as including “Barrios Salvacion, Bulala, Rizal, San Lorenzo,
PulongGuitguit, Santa Elena, San Vicente, Basiad and San Pedro up to the boundary of the Province of Quezon and the
Province of Camarines Norte as defined in Chapter three, Article II, Section forty-two of the Administrative Code”
 Quezon: Including the 9 barangays within the disputed area in the territory of Sta. Elena would violate not only Sec. 1 of
RA 5480, but also Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution and LGC 10 which require the conducting of a plebiscite in cases of
substantial alteration of territorial boundaries.
 SC: This has been resolved with finality in the 1989 decision: RA 5480 does not purport to have amended Section 42 of the
Revised Administrative Code nor Section 2 of Act No. 2809, both as implemented in the decision dated 16 June 1922 of the
Executive Bureau of the Department of Interior.
o Sec. 1 of RA 5480 extends the jurisdiction of Sta. Elena up to the Quezon-CamNor boundary, which was
defined in the 1922 EB decision; which was in turn ordered enforced by the SC in its 1989 decision. The
enumeration of barangays in Sec. 1 is not a delimitation of territorial jurisdiction.
o The 1922 decision did not “alter, re-define, or amend” an existing provincial boundary. All it did was
implement RAC 42. The reliance on the plebiscite provisions of the Local Govenment Code and Art. X,
Constitution are therefore misplaced.

Authority of the DENR technical team comes from the President through his alter ego, the SENR

 Special Order No. 1179 issued by the DENR Secretary was the basis for the DENR team’s authority to conduct the survey
and place boundary markers. The DENR Secretary is the President’s alter ego; thus the SENR’s acts are presumed to be
acts of the President, unless expressly repudiated by the latter. The argument that the survey was conducted without
Presidential authority is therefore baseless.
RL liable for indirect contempt

 RL thus openly disobeyed the 1989 Decision when they caused the removal of the monument marker installed by the
DENR. The significance of the monument marker cannot simply be disregarded. As aptly explained by Engr. Mamerto
Infante, it has a technical purpose of preserving the survey conducted by his team. In fact the 1989 Decision mandates "...to
monument the Basiad Bay-Mt. Cadig line described in the 16 June 1922 decision of the Chief of the Executive Bureau."

 That RL understood the 1989 Decision is fully borne by the records in these cases and well attested by their valiant effort in
re-litigating issues already settled by this Court. That same effort, however, highlighted by their contumacious destruction
of the monument, worked adversely to their cause. It renders them liable for indirect contempt.
NO GAD COMMITTED IN ISSUING ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS; COMELEC & OTHER AGENCIES COMMENDED
FOR IMPLEMENTING 1989 DECISION
 Quezon: The assailed COMELEC resolutions recognizing CamNor’s jurisdiction over the 9 disputed barangays were issued
with grave abuse of discretion, being violative of RA 5480, Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution and LGC 10.

 COMELEC: The assailed Resolutions were issued in deference to the 1989 decision, and only after the land boundary
dispute between the two provinces had been settled. The resolutions were mere compliance with the SC resolution dated
Aug. 4, 1994 in the same case.

 SC fully agrees COMELEC. For showing high regard to the SC's Decision and Orders, we commend not only the
COMELEC but also the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of Finance, the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Interior and Local Government and the National Statistics Office.
These government offices and agencies have collectively recognized the subject 9 barangays as part of Camarines Norte's
jurisdiction.

 It is only Quezon Province and its officials who ignore the finality of the Decision and Resolutions of the SC. Their present
petition attempts to re-litigate the same issues judiciously passed upon by the SC with finality. It is but imperative for the
SC to write finis to these cases. Indeed, every litigation must come to an end; otherwise, it would become even more
intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to correct.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition for contempt in G.R. No. 80796 is GRANTED. Respondents Eduardo T.
Rodriguez and Julio U. Lim are adjudged GUILTY of INDIRECT CONTEMPT of this Court and, pursuant to Section 6, Rule
71 of the Revised Rules of Court, are FINED in the amount of P1,000.00 each, and WARNED that a repetition of similar
misconduct will be dealt with more severely. The Province of Quezon, its representatives and any person acting on its behalf are
ORDERED to REFRAIN from committing the same or similar act tending to obstruct the full implementation of this Court’s
Decision dated November 9, 1989 in G.R. No. 80796.

You might also like