SEC En Banc Case No. 02-23-514Romilyn Ligate and Analiza Donato Balmaceda vs. Sumpaw ng Inangsabong Mansaka, Inc.

Securities and Exchange Commission COMMISSION EN BANC Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance

ANALIZA DONATO-BALMACEDA, ROMILYN M. LIGATE and

Complainants-Appellees,

-versus- SEC En Banc Case No.02-23-514

GORIANO, as Chairman, Corporate Secretary, Treasurer, C. DADONG,andJASMIN AURELIO G. MATAAS, ROBELYN respectively, and Corporate D of Promulgated: 08 July 2025

MANSAKA, INC.. SUMPAW Respondents-Appellants., NG INANGSABONG

RESOLUTION

Inangsabong Mansaka, Inc. ("the Corporation") under Section 73 of the Order dated 16 November 2022 ("Assailed Order") which granted Romilyn M. Ligate and Analiza Donato-Balmaceda (the "Appellees") the right to inspect and copy the corporate records of Sumpaw ng Revised Corporation Code. Mataas, Robelyn C. Dadong, and Jasmin D. Goriano (collectively the "Appellants") on 16 February 2023 assailing the SEC Davao Extension Resolution") denying their Motion for Reconsideration of SEC Davao EO's Office's ("SEC Davao EO") Resolution dated 24 January 2023 ("Assailed On record is an Appeal Memorandum ("Appeal") filed by Aurelio G.

a corporation created for the benefit of their tribe. It is the Appellants' Davao EO but with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples reversible error in taking cognizance of the case which involves parties who are both members of the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs)/ Indigenous Peoples (IPs) from Maco,Davao de Oro,and are members of position that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the SEc (NCIP). In their Appeal, Appellants argued that SEC Davao EO committed

1 Through an Appeal Memorandum dated 14 February 2023.

Ligate, et al. v. Mataas, et al. SEC Case No. 02-23-514 RESOLUTION Page 2 of 4

involving parties belonging to the same ICCs or IPs fall under the Memorandum) of even date, praying that the Assailed Order be sustained on the ground that contrary to the position of the Appellants, not all cases jurisdiction of the NCIP. The Appellees argued that jurisdiction over the Corporation, especially relating to the members' right to inspect Comment and/or Opposition (In re: Respondent-Appellants' Appeal corporate records, is vested in the Commission. On 24 April 2023, Appellees filed their Entry of Appearance with

Case to the Unified Indigenous People Structure ("Joint Motion to Refer") where they mutually moved to be allowed to explore mediation through the baraw-baraw system under their customary laws. On 12 September 2023, both parties filed a Joint Motion to Refer the

Manifestation in Aid of Resolution2 ("Motion") praying that the Joint Motion to Refer be granted or noted in aid of resolving the Appeal and Appeal be promptly resolved. On 07 April 2025, Appellants filed a Motion for Resolution with

This Office resolves to grant the Joint Motion to Refer.

recognizes the settlement of disputes under customary law between ICCs/IPs, to wit: The Supreme Court, in the case of Undaran v. Aherasturi,s

parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP. jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs same ICC/IP. This can be gathered from the qualifying provision that "no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by A careful review of Section 66 shows that the NCIP shall have only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the

certification by the Council of Elders/Leaders. This is in recognition of the rights..of ICCs/IPs to use their own institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and The qualifying provision requires two conditions before such disputes may be brought before the NCIP, namely: (1) exhaustion of remedies under customary Iaws of the parties, and (2) commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution compliance with condition precedent through the said

3 G.R. No. 181284, October 20, 2015 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc]. 2 Dated 02 April 2025.

Ligate, et al. v. Mataas, et al. SEC Case No. 02-23-514 RESOLUTION Page 3 of 4

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied). other customary laws and practices within their respective communities, as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights.

Procedure of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("2016 Rules") encourages the resolution of cases by means of amicable settlement, to wit: Furthermore, Part III, Section 5-2 of the 2016 Rules of

Special Hearing Panel or the Director of the Operating Department." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) be encouraged at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is not prejudicial to the public interest or third parties, or contraryl to law, rules or regulations of the Commission, or against good morals or public policy. The amicable settlement shall be reduced into writing, duly signed by the part and/or their counsels, and shall be the basis of the appropriate Order or Decision of the "Section 5-2. Amicable Settlement... Amicable settlement shall

hearing as provided in Part V, Section 3-8 of the 2016 Rules, to wit: Amicable settlement is also possible during the clarificatory

the hearing officer, for a clarificatory hearing to take up any possibility of amicable settlement or mediation." (Emphasis discretion, may call the parties to appear before the OGC, acting as matter pertinent to the resolution of the case including the and underscoring suppliedy promulgation of the decision, the Commission En Banc, in its "SECTION 3-8. Clarificatory Hearing. - At any time before the

courts in the process of settlement may be suspended and archived4 as explained in the case of National Transmission Corp. v. Untiveros,5 to wit: In relation thereto, similar cases pending before the regular

that a civil case be archived only in the following instances: "In civil cases, the court may, motu proprio or upon motion, order

(a) When the parties are in the process of settlement, in which a period not exceeding ninety (90) days. The case shall be included in the trial calendar on the day immediately following the lapse of the suspension period." case the proceedings may be suspended and the case archived for

4 0CA Circular No. 89-04, Re: Reiteration of the Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases dated 5 G.R. No. 266880, May 15, 2024 [Per J. Lopez, Second Division]. August 12, 2004.

Ligate, et al. v. Mataas, et at. SEC Case No. 02-23-514 RESOLUTION Page 4 of 4

issue within the framework of their customary laws. On account thereof, the instant Appeal shall be deferred in the meantime. Motion to Refer to allow the parties the possibility of settling their Considering the foregoing, this Office resolves to grant the Joint

Indigenous Peoples Dispute Resolution Process under the parties' Case to the Unified Indigenous People Structure is hereby GRANTED and the resolution of the Appeal Memorandum is hereby DEFERRED. The Appellants and Appellees are hereby DIRECTED to inform the Commission En Banc by way of a manifestation of the result. of the customary law. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joint Motion to Refer the

joint settlement or upon proper motion of either party, or unless proceedings. circumstances occur that will warrant the continuance of the The instant case is ordered ARCHIVED until the submission of a

SO ORDERED.

Makati City, Philippines.

Commission En Banc: By Authority of the

ROMUALD C.PADILLA AMWMLKMY

eneral Counsel