8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

1/9

INTRODUCTION:

It is within the purview of Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise known as

Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 that the use of an alternative

dispute resolution process is an important means to achieve speedy andimpartial justice and declog court dockets. It also promotes freedom of the

parties to make their own arrangements to resolve their disputes. The case that

we observed is within the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources due to the fact that it involves a complaint against a DENR

employee and a Private Geodetic Engineer. The Department of Environment

and Natural Resources is the executive department of the Philippine

government responsible for governing and supervising the exploration,

development, utilization and conservation of the natural resources. And asadministrative body of the government, it can exercise quasi-judicial power to

adjudicate disputes, issues or controversies which fall within its jurisdiction.

The process undertaken in resolving the cases is summary in nature. Parties are

called in the office of the DENR and settle their issues in the presence of an

employee of the DENR who acts as the mediator. Both parties are given the

chance to defend their allegations and their sides in the case.

FACTS:On December 04, 2012, Mr. Stephen John Macatuggal filed a

complaint against personnel of concerned division of DENR RO2 regarding

fraudulent revision of subject subdivision plan. Hereunder are the details, to

wit:

1. Mr. Stephen John Macattugal is the owner of a fully developed lot1627-B-4 located at Cataggamman Tuguegarao City, subdivided into

six lots, namely lots 1627-B-4-A to F, the first lot being a part of the

barangay road.

2. Adjacent to Lot 1627-B-4 is Lot 1627 B 5 (subject of complaint),previously owned by Erwin Geron, also subdivided into 6 lots. Per

approved subdivision plan, both lot 1627-B-4 and lot 1627-B-5 is

provided with a 2 meter perpetual road right of way, hence a total of 4

meter road right of way in between the two lots.

3. The adjacent lot, also subdivided into six lots, namely, lot numbers1627-B-5-B to 1627-B-5-F are now owned by the following:

a. James Pattaguan (Lot 1627-B-5-B)b. Raissa Jennifer Pulido (Lot 1627-B-5-C)c. Monserrat Quinagoran (Lot 1627-B-5-D)d. Joel Dannug (Lot 1627-B-5-E)e. Liza Maquera (Lot 1627-B-5-F)

8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

2/9

4. All of the above owners acquired the lots thru HMDF Housing loanfinancing in the year 2010 to 2011 as evidenced by certified copies of

titles from the Register of Deeds

5. On May 22, 2012, Mr. Stephen John Macatuggal filed for a loan withthe HDMF- Pag-ibig fund to purchase lot 1627-B-4-E where he wasrequired to comply with some findings of the inspection and appraisal

unit of HDMF housing department.

6. To comply with the recommendations, both vendor (Helen Cabugos)and borrower (Stephen John Macatuggal) approached owner of lot

1627-B-5-B (James Patagguan) and requested for the clearance of the

road right of way but said lot owner insisted that his fence is erected

within the designated boundaries. All of the above 5 lot owners,

insisted that they already provided for another 1 meter road right ofway on the west side of their lots to which Mr. Macatuggal was

confused because per plan the road right of way was only on the east

side.

7. To clear things up, Mr. Macatuggal et. al., commissioned the servicesof private Geodetic Engineers together with some personnel of the

Tuguegarao City Assessors Office and Geodetic Engineer Marcos

Patagguan, brother of the owner of lot 1627-B-5-B (James Patagguan),

to assist them in locating the boundaries of both lots and establish theexact measurement and location of the road right of way. Actual

survey revealed that there was an error on the boundaries of the lots.

8. Verification made with the Cadastral Map at the City Assessors Officeindicates that there was indeed a 4 meter road right of way between

the two lots as per documents submitted by the lot owners.

9. They proceeded to the surveys division of DENR RO2 and wasappalled that there was a revision made with PSD 2-01-012788 where

the road right of way was changed to only 1 meter. It was alleged that

it was not even a revision because when they requested for the

original plan with the 2 meter road right of way, the records section of

the DENR RO2 informed them that it was not on their file. It was

made to appear that the original plan of the lot 1627-B-5 was the one

with the 1 meter road right of way. The question raised was: How was

it possible when the subdivision plans of the loan borrowers of lot

numbers 1627-B-5-B which were submitted to office of the DENR

RO2 bear the 2 meter road right of way as indicated in the technical

description on their respective titles. Clearly, there was a switchingmade by the Geodetic Engr. Flexer Patromo who connived with

personnel of the records section to cover for the discrepancy in the

original plan of lot 1627-B-5.

8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

3/9

In view of the above circumstances, Mr. Macatuggal fervently

requested for the following:

1. A fact-finding committee should conduct an investigation on suchpractice made at the records section specifically of personnel whoconnive with Geodetic Engineers such as Flexer Patromo in

committing these fraudulent transactions.

2. Since Engr. Patromo has a reputation of committing errors in hissurveys and tampering with plans submitted by him be subject to a

review by another department other than the ones he is transacting

with prior to approval to avoid similar incidentsof fraud.

3. Engr. Patromo should be compelled to undertake all necessarycorrections with regards the errors made in the original plan 1627-B-5 and restore the 4 meter road right of way that rightfully for the

use of the lot owners within the 3 subdivided lots.

4. Lot owners of subdivided Lot 1627-B-5 be made accountable forallowing Engr. Patromo to tamper with the duly approved

subdivision plan which is already mortgaged which HDMF Pagibig

Fund bearing the technical description of the original subdivision

plan. It is implied that lot owners are aware and approved of the

said revision since they refused to clear the road right of way andinsists that they provided a 1 meter road right of way on the other

side of their lot which is in violation of their housing loan contract

with the HDMF.

5. An ocular inspection of the lots be conducted to validate thiscomplaint.

On January 05, 2013, the Office of the Regional Technical Director for

Lands, Atty. Gil A. Aromin, prepared a letter to address the allegations to Engr.

Flexer Patromo, copy furnished to the complainant Mr. Macatuggal et. al.

inviting them for a confrontation/dialogue on January 28, 2013 to settle the

issue once and for all.

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS:

We were present during the said dialogue to observe mediation

proceedings on these types of cases handled by the DENR Region II. Here are

our observations during the said proceedings:1. On January 28, 2013, 9:00 am, at the Office of the Regional Technical

Director for Lands, the following parties were present:

a. Mr. Stephen John Macatuggal- complainantb. Mrs. Helen Cabugos- complainant

8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

4/9

c. Engr. Flexer Patromo- Geodetic Engineerd. Mrs. Adela Soriano- Chief, Rcords Section DENR RO2e. Engr. Alberto S. Obedoza- Chief, Surveys Divisionf. Atty. Gil A. Aromin- Regional Technical Director for Landsg. Cheenee Vehemente & Diana Rosendo- observers

2. The complaint was read by Atty. Gil A. Aromin and proceeded to ask thecomplainant if they still want to pursue the complaint and willing to have a

settlement. The complainants answered that they only want clarification on

how there was switching on subdivision plans.

3. Engr. Flexer Patromo explains his side on the issue and the following eventsoccurred:

a. On October 20, 2007, in the person of Mr. Bernard Carag ofPNB Tuguegarao Branch, requested his services as a GeodeticEngineer to subdivide the property, located at Cataggaman

Nuevo, Tuguegarao City, designated as Lot 1627-B-5, registered

in the name of Erwin J. Geron, duly covered by registered titles

in the name of Helen Joyce A. Cabugos.

b. On October 26, 2007, he conducted the reconnaissance surveybefore I executed the subdivision of the said lot and found out

on the western portion of Lot 1627-B-5 that there is an existing

road and on the southern portion there is an existing BarangayRoad, both of Lot 1627-B-4 and Lot 1627-B-5, which is not

mention on the titles and approved plan of Lot 1627-B-5.

c. After the subdivision of Lot 1627-B-5 and monumenting thecorners he proceeded to Lot 1627-B-4, but were not able to

continue, because there was an actual occupant in the old house

erected and prevented him to enter the premises. He stopped in

setting the corners of Lot 1627-B-4

d. Sometime in December 2007, he continued the survey togetherwith Mr. Carag and came up with the survey returns for

submission and approval of the said subdivision survey to the

DENR RO2.

e. On January 04, 2008, the survey returns submitted to the DENRR02 for verification and approval and on January 11, 2008 it was

approved by Engr. Alberto S. Obedoza, Chief of Surveys and

Atty. Gil A. Aromin, Regional Technical Director for Lands.

f. Sometime in February 2012, Mr. Carag called him up and saidthat there was a buyer or a new owner of Lot 1627-B-4-B, theperson of Mr. Macatuggal, complaining regarding the

measurement of the said lot, immediately he went to the site

and conducted the verification survey of the mother lot (Lot

1627) and the subdivision of lots and found out that there was

8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

5/9

an error on my first subdivision survey with a difference of 1

meter more or less, and asked forgiveness to Mr. Carag for that

mistake of taking wrong reference on the other lot.

g. He visited the site with Mr. Carag 3-5 times just to make aremedy or solution to the problem, until Mr. Carag decided thatthe perpetual road right of way of 2 meters wide from the lot of

1627-B-5 on the eastern portion must reduce to 1 meter wide

and on the lot 1627-B-4, on the western portion remain the 2

meters wide, with a total of 3 meters wide.

h. Mrs. Helen Cabugos called him requesting him to visit the siteagain with her presence regarding the perpetual road right of

way, especially the temporary fence and not properly

constructed on the property along the perpetual road right ofway by Mr. James Pattaguan of Lot 1627-B-5-B.

i. Mrs. Cabugos asked him to coordinate with Mr. Pattaguan tofixed the temporary fence in proper along the perpetual road

right of way, and he said yes but with Mr. Carag, because he

knows how to contact Mr. Pattaguan, and he asked the help of

Mr. Carag on the matter to settle the problem of Mrs. Cabugos

regarding the fence.

j.

Mrs. Cabugos asked him to go to the PAG-IBIG office to explainthe error on his first subdivision survey and the relocation

survey that he made and the changes of the width of the

perpetual road right of way from 4 meters to 3 meters wide,

with 45 meters length as a private road right of way

accommodating 3 lots only.

k. He met the same official when he went back to the Pag-ibigOffice and the official told him that the problem was the fence

of Mr. James Pattaguan and the 3 meters width of road right of

way was accepted for the length of 45 meters.

l. He made the necessary correction on the approved plan of theperpetual road right of way to conform on the ground, no

changed of area, bearing and distances and only the broken line

was changed.

m.Engr. Patromo clarified that the complainant Mr. StephenMacatuggal is not known to him or he was not even his client.

n. Engr. Patromo admitted his fault in the correction that he madealone on the original plan file in the Record Section in the officeof DENR Region 02 and said sorry that he did not follow the

right procedures in correcting the approved plan.

8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

6/9

4. Mrs. Adela Soriano, Records Officer of the DENR R02, vehemently

disagree with the allegations raised by Mr. Stephen John Macatuggal against her

persona. She would not allow any instances such as this matter that would

affect her personally and professionally and to my work as a public servant. She

is fully aware of her duties and responsibilities as a records custodian. Herservice records will speak of her dedication to her job. I have nothing to gain

but everything to lose if she will trade her credibility and integrity for that

matter. It has been her homily every time by reminding her staff and all

personnel assigned at the records unit to give their very best in handling of all

official records and documents. And to be watchful for any eventualities or else

each one will have to suffer the consequences attendant thereto. She is

confident that they are doing their duties and functions responsibly and

conscientiously. There may be lapses but probably not on their end. In defenseof their allegations, perhaps before the approved survey plans and records were

transmitted to the records unit, there might have been changes that were

already made in the said plan. She also assured that she will continue to strictly

enforce the rules and regulations regarding records management.

5. Atty. Gil A. Aromin, Regional Technical Director for Lands advised the

parties that the DENR will create a task force to investigate the issue and

conduct a necessary ocular inspection on the site in question. Furthermore, toaddress the complaint regarding Engr. Flexer Patromo, the complainant should

file a formal complaint lodged to the grievance committee of Geodetic

Engineers of the Philippines or the Professional Regulatory Commission. The

parties were no where near settlement that is why Atty. Aromin closed the

dialogue by saying that they will proceed with the ocular inspection and the

creation of task force and the updates will be given to the parties via formal

communications.

6. The case was not yet settled due to the ocular inspection and

investigation undertaken to determine who are liable on the switching of plans

and to correct the subdivision survey and plan conducted by Engr. Flexer

Patromo. But from the previous cases handled by the DENR, after the ocular

inspection and investigation, the DENR will forward the result to the parties

and another dialogue or confrontation shall be called for the final

determination of who should be made liable and to correct the plan. If, from

the investigation, it found out that the employee is liable, he shall be subjected

to proper disciplinary action or termination, depending upon the weight of hisliability.

8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

7/9

CONCLUSION/EVALUATION:

OBSERVATION ON THE PROCEEDING:

From the above proceeding, we therefore conclude that theproceedings undertaken in a mediation of the DENR, as an alternative mean to

settle disputes or controversies, does not require for a formalities which are

usually required in a court litigation. The parties are not usually required to file

formal papers, documents or pleadings like answer, reply and the same. The

proceeding is between the parties and an employee of the DENR, who serves

as the mediator. The mediator only acts as a facilitator in the communication

and negotiation, and assists the parties in reaching for a voluntary agreement

regarding the dispute. There is a free flow of confrontation; both parties aregiven the chance to be heard of their sides. And most importantly, there is a

speedy disposition of the case because of its non-adversarial in nature. Usually,

the case or issue is being terminated within a very short span of time. And the

language or dialect used in the confrontation is in a manner which both parties

can understand.

But on the other hand, we also observed that the mediator is not so

knowledgeable in terms of the legal aspect of the case, although they are

efficient in terms of facilitating and assisting the parties. They also have theknowledge on the issues since it pertains to cases which are within their

function and duties and within their expertise. And although the parties are

free to enter into any agreement, such agreement must not prejudicial to either

of the parties and it should not be against the law and public policy, public

order, moral and custom.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is evident on the said case that the DENR can only be held accountable

if there has been neglect of duty by their personnel/employee. As per our

evaluation, there is no sufficient evidence to say that there is connivance

between Engr. Flexer Patromo and Mrs. Adela Soriano, but there has been

negligence on the part of the Records Unit. There should be a system on how

can an ordinary individual can gain access to an already approved plan. Perhaps

the approved plans kept in the records unit should be secured and can be

accessed by few authorized personnel.

The case is with merit and the complainants should file a formalcomplaint in the Legal Division of the DENR R02 to render final judgment.

8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

8/9

PEER EVALUATION:

For Cheenee Marie Keith C. Vehemente

My partner in this requirement, Cheenee Marie Keith Vehemente, is very

enthusiastic. She shows determination for us to finish this requirement on

time. She is also very eager to observe in a mediation proceeding. She is

supportive from the very beginning, from planning to where and when we shall

observe to finishing this final paper. Without her support, I cannot come up

with this requirement.

For Diana Rose S. Rosendo

I never thought this paper will be completed without the help and

support of my partner. She communicates her ideas very well and attends every

brainstorming regarding this project. She listens to my suggestions and helps set

goals and timetables. This project is a result of a team effort and without the

assistance of each other, this project may never be finished.

8/12/2019 ADR PAPER

9/9

ALTERNATIVE DISPUtE RESOLUTION

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR)

Cheenee Marie Keith C. Vehemente

Diana Rose S. Rosendo

COLLEGE OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY

22 MARCH 2013