Pyro Copper
Pyro Copper
Pyro Copper
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 179674
period; and (b) the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner did not include a
certification against forum shopping.17
Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review under Rule 43
of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 97663.
In a Resolution dated 23 February 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
said Petition, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43, of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure,18 for failure of petitioner to attach thereto some pertinent
and relevant documents required under Section 6 of the same Rule.19
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 23 February 2007
Resolution, together with the required documents. Private respondent,
however, in its Comment,20 still prayed for the dismissal of the Petition in CAG.R. SP No. 97663 for failure of petitioner to submit Atty. Acsays authority to
sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.
Petitioner was given an opportunity to submit Atty. Acsays written authority,
but failed to do so. Consequently, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution
dated 6 September 2007, denying for lack of merit the Petition in CA-G.R. SP
No. 97663.
Hence, this Petition.
The petitioner raises the following issues for this Courts Resolution:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE [COURT OF APPEALS] DEPARTED FROM THE
RULES AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DISMISSED THE
PETITION [A QUO] DESPITE FAITHFUL COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES
ON DISCLOSURE AS INCORPORATED IN THE VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION PORTION OF THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION [OF] TIME
AND PETITION A QUO.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE [COURT OF APPEALS] DEPARTED
FROM THE RULES AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN
IT
DISMISSED
THE
PETITION A QUO DESPITE
THE
ATTACHMENT AND SUBMISSION OF THE REQUISITE
AUTHORITY TO MAKE AND SIGN VERIFICATIONS AND
SUBSEQUENTLY REQUIRED PLEADINGS.
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE [COURT OF APPEALS] REFUSED TO
ADJUDICATE
THE
PETITION A
QUO DESPITE
THE
ATTENDANCE OF A CLEARLY EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER AND
PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED AS WELL AS THE
NECESSITY FOR A RULING TO PUT AN END TO
UNSCRUPULOUS ISSUANCE OF MINING CLAIMS.
IV. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENTS IN THE DENR
COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF
the best legally suitable person to make the required sworn disclosures in the
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping in the Petition of
petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 97663.
Petitioner also contends that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 January
2007 by the board of directors of petitioner, bestowing upon Atty. Acsay the
authority to make and sign the Verification for the Motion for Extension of
Time to File Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure, must be construed in its entirety. According to the Minutes,
Atty. Acsay was granted authority by the board to sign even verifications,
which may be required in subsequent pleadings filed by petitioner. The
reference in the Minutes to the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition
for Review is not meant to be restrictive or qualifying, as to exclude other
pleadings.
With the foregoing, petitioner firmly argues that it has substantially complied
with the requirements for the execution of the Verification and Certification
against Forum Shopping, which accompanied its Petition in CA-G.R. SP No.
97663.
Section 6(d), Rule 4322 in relation to Section 2, Rule 4223 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a petition for review shall
contain a sworn certification against forum shopping, in which the petitioner
shall attest that he has not commenced any other action involving the same
issues in this Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any
other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must
state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before this Court, the Court
of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five days therefrom.24
For failure to comply with this mandate, Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the
petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the
payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of
service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The requirement that petitioner should sign the Certification against Forum
Shopping applies even to corporations, the Rules of Court making no
distinction between natural and juridical persons.25 A corporation, however,
exercises its powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized
officers and agents. Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be
performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by
corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.26 The
signatory, therefore, in the case of the corporation should be "a duly
From the very beginning, petitioner failed to attach to its Petition for Review
before the Court of Appeals the relevant documents required by Section 6,
Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure. Petitioner had two
opportunities to comply with the requisites, i.e., when it filed its Motion for
Reconsideration of the 23 February 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
and when it submitted its compliance with the 8 June 2007 Resolution of the
appellate court; yet, petitioner still failed to do so. Petitioner never offered any
satisfactory explanation for its stubborn non-compliance with or disregard for
the rules of procedure.
It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, and that the rules of
procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice.
However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and
at random, to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the
issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules
should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance
may have resulted in prejudice to a partys substantial rights. Like all rules,
they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of
reasons.32
II
Even assuming arguendo that Atty. Acsay did have the authority to sign the
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping for the Petition for
Review of petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 97663, and the Court of Appeals
erred in dismissing said Petition, the Court still cannot grant the prayer of
petitioner herein to reverse the actions undertaken by the DENR as regards
the cancellation of its MPSA No. 153-2000-1 and the issuance of EP No. 05001 to private respondent.
Petitioner insists that it filed its Verified Protest/Opposition to the Application
for Exploration Permit of private respondent within the reglementary period.
Based on the records of MGB, the Notice of Application for Exploration Permit
of private respondent was actually posted from 14 July 2005 to 28 July 2005.
Applying the 30-day reglementary period, the last date on which to file any
adverse claim, protest or opposition to the said application was 27 August
2005, a Saturday. Since 29 August 2005, Monday, was declared a national
holiday, the next business day was 30 August 2005, Tuesday. This very well
explains why the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner was filed on 30
August 2005. Petitioner further avows that it paid the required legal fees
through postal money order. The issuance of the official receipt only after the
filing, through registered mail, of its Verified Protest/Opposition, does not
erase the fact that the docket fees were paid to and received by the
government.
Section 21 of DAO No. 96-40 mandates:
Section 21. Publication/Posting/Radio Announcement of an Exploration
Permit Application. - x x x Any adverse claim, protest or opposition shall be
filed directly, within thirty (30) calendar days from the last date of
publication/posting/radio announcement, with the concerned Regional Office
or through any concerned PENRO or CENRO for filing in the concerned
Regional Office for purposes of its resolution by the Panel of Arbitrators
pursuant to the provisions of the Act and these implementing rules and
regulations. x x x.
Considering that the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure before the
Panel of Arbitrators and MAB are bereft of any provision regarding the
computation of time and the manner of filing, the Court may refer to Section
1, Rule 22 and Section 3, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure,33 which state:
Section 1. How to compute time. In computing any period of time prescribed
or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable
statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time
begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the
last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a
legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the
next working day. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 3. Manner of filing. - The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions,
notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting
the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of
court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of
court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second
case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or
payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or
the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment or
deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the present case, notices of the Application for Exploration Permit of private
respondent were published in newspapers,34 announced on the radio,35 and
posted in public places. The posting was done the latest, so we reckon the
last possible date petitioner could have validly filed its Verified
Petition/Opposition with the Panel of Arbitrators therefrom.
The notices of the Application for Exploration Permit of private respondent
were posted on the bulletin boards of the Office of the Municipal Mayor of
Dasol, Pangasinan on 16 to 31 March 2005; Office of the Municipal Mayor of
Mabini, Pangasinan on 16 to 31 March 2005; Office of the Pangasinan
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources on 17 March 2005 to 2 April
2005; Office of the DENR Provincial Environment and Natural ResourcesPangasinan on 15 March 2005 to 6 April 2005; Office of the DENR
Community Environment and Natural Resources-Alaminos City on 17 March
2005 to 5 April 2005; Offices of the Punong Barangays of Malimpin, San
Pedro, Barlo, San Vicente, and Alilao on 16 to 31 March 2005; and MGB on
14 to 28 July 2005.36
Since the notice of the Application for Exploration Permit of private
respondent was last posted on 28 July 2005, the 30-day reglementary period
for filing any adverse claim/protest/opposition thereto ended on 27 August
2005. As petitioner explained, however, 27 August 2005 was a Saturday; and
29 August 2005, Monday, was declared a national holiday,37 so the next
working day was 30 August 2005, Tuesday. Petitioner did send its Verified
Protest/Opposition, through registered mail, on 30 August 2005, as evidenced
by the Affidavit of Service38 of even date and Registry Receipts No. 10181;
No. 10182; No. 10183; and No. 10184.39 Nevertheless, the Court still could
not consider the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner as having been filed
within the reglementary period.lavvphil
Section 21 of DAO No. 96-40, fixing the 30-day reglementary period for filing
any adverse claim/protest/opposition to an application for exploration permit,
must be read in relation to Section 204 of DAO No. 96-40, which reads:
Section 204. Substantial Requirements for Adverse Claims, Protest and
Oppositions. No adverse claim, protest or opposition involving mining rights
shall be accepted for filing unless verified and accompanied by the prescribed
docket fee and proof of services to the respondent(s), either personally or by
registered mail: Provided, That the requirement for the payment of docket
fees shall not be imposed on pauper litigants[;] (Emphasis supplied.)
and Section 7, Rule III of the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure
before the Panel of Arbitrators and MAB, which states that:
Section 7. Form and Contents of Adverse Claims, Protest or Opposition. No
adverse claim, petition, protest or opposition involving mining rights shall be
accepted for filing unless verified and accompanied by the prescribed docket
fee and proof of services to the respondent(s), either personally or by
registered mail: Provided, That the requirement for the payment of docket
fees shall not be imposed on pauper litigants. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 204 of DAO No. 96-40 and Section 7, Rule III of the Rules on
Pleadings, Practice and Procedure before the Panel of Arbitrators and MAB
explicitly require that the adverse claim/protest/opposition be accompanied by
the payment of the prescribed docket fee for the same to be accepted for
filing.
Upon a careful examination of the records of this case, it appears that the
docket fee was paid only on 6 September 2005, as evidenced by Official
Receipt (O.R.) No. 7478283 B.40 Although petitioner avers that it paid the
docket fee through postal money order in which case, the date of mailing
would be deemed the date of payment such averment is unsubstantiated.
The Court finds no evidence to prove that petitioner actually sent the
purported postal money order for the payment of the docket fee. Petitioner
submits the following evidence to prove payment of the docket fee: (a) a
owners,
occupants
and
d. Disputes pending before the Bureau and the Department at the date
of the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis supplied.)
In Olympic Mines and Development Corporation v. Platinum Group Metals
Corporation43 citing Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v.
Macroasia Corporation,44 this Court made the following pronouncements as
regards paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 77 of Republic Act No. 7942:
In Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corporation,
et al., this Court speaking through Justice Velasco, specified the kind of
disputes that fall under Section 77(a) of the Mining Act:
The phrase "disputes involving rights to mining areas" refers to any adverse