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 and
impartial 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 as
administrative 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 lot
1627-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 numbers
1627-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)
4. All of the above owners acquired the lots thru HMDF Housing loan
financing 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 with
the HDMF- Pag-ibig fund to purchase lot 1627-B-4-E where he was
required 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 of
way 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 services
of 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 the
exact 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 Office
indicates 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 was
appalled 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 switching
made 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.

In view of the above circumstances, Mr. Macatuggal fervently
requested for the following:

1. A fact-finding committee should conduct an investigation on such
practice made at the records section specifically of personnel who
connive with Geodetic Engineers such as Flexer Patromo in
committing these fraudulent transactions.
2. Since Engr. Patromo has a reputation of committing errors in his
surveys 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 necessary
corrections 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 for
allowing 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 and
insists 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 this
complaint.

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- complainant
b. Mrs. Helen Cabugos- complainant
c. Engr. Flexer Patromo- Geodetic Engineer
d. Mrs. Adela Soriano- Chief, Rcords Section DENR RO2
e. Engr. Alberto S. Obedoza- Chief, Surveys Division
f. Atty. Gil A. Aromin- Regional Technical Director for Lands
g. Cheenee Vehemente & Diana Rosendo- observers
2. The complaint was read by Atty. Gil A. Aromin and proceeded to ask the
complainant 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 events
occurred:
a. On October 20, 2007, in the person of Mr. Bernard Carag of
PNB Tuguegarao Branch, requested his services as a Geodetic
Engineer 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 survey
before 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 Barangay
Road, 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 the
corners 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 together
with 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 DENR
R02 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 said
that there was a buyer or a new owner of Lot 1627-B-4-B, the
person 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
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 a
remedy or solution to the problem, until Mr. Carag decided that
the 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 site
again 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 of
way by Mr. James Pattaguan of Lot 1627-B-5-B.
i. Mrs. Cabugos asked him to coordinate with Mr. Pattaguan to
fixed 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 explain
the 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-ibig
Office 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 the
perpetual 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. Stephen
Macatuggal is not known to him or he was not even his client.
n. Engr. Patromo admitted his fault in the correction that he made
alone on the original plan file in the Record Section in the office
of DENR Region 02 and said sorry that he did not follow the
right procedures in correcting the approved plan.

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. Her
service 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 defense
of 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, to
address 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 his
liability.



CONCLUSION/EVALUATION:

OBSERVATION ON THE PROCEEDING:

From the above proceeding, we therefore conclude that the
proceedings 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 are
given 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 the
knowledge 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 formal
complaint in the Legal Division of the DENR R02 to render final judgment.



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.





















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