Resolution 3 G.R. No. 162226
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration
dated July 28, 1998which was, however, denied in an Order
dated September 25, 1998.Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the MAB.
The MAB Ruling
In a Decision
dated September 24, 2002, the MAB affirmed thedismissal of petitioner’s complaint, albeit on a different ground. While itruled that the PA has jurisdiction over the complaint, the same isnevertheless dismissible for being premature.
The MAB opined that sincethe complaint is primarily anchored on perceived environmental damageswhich are still abstract, anticipatory, and not ripef or determination, petitioner lacks a cause of action against PNOC-EDC.
Nonetheless, theMAB declared that such dismissal is without prejudice to any protest or opposition to PNOC-EDC’s non-compliance with its Environmental Work Program under any exploration permit that may be issued to it.
Petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion for Time
dated October 30, 2002, praying for an extension to file a motion for reconsideration of theaforesaid Decision.On September 17, 2003, PNOC-EDC, through its Chairman and President/CEO Atty. Sergio A. F. Apostol, requested that an Order be issued declaring the MAB’s Decision dated September 24, 2002 final and executory for petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration withinthe reglementary period.
In an Order
dated January 21, 2004, the MAB declared its Decisiondated September 24, 2002 final and executory. It cited Section 11, Rule V of the Rules which provides that motions for reconsideration should be filed within 10 days from receipt of the decision, resolution or order sought to bereconsidered. Moreover, it noted that petitioner actually failed to file a
Disputes involving mining permits, mineral agreements, financial or technicalassistance agreement;(c)
Disputes involving surface owners, occupants, and claimholders/concessionaires; and (d)
Disputes pending before the Regional Office and the Department at the date of the effectivity of the Act;
, That appealed cases before the Department shall be under the jurisdiction of the Board.x x x x
, pp. 131-135.
Id. at 146-148.
Id. at 149-155. Memorandum of Appeal dated October 12, 1998.
Id. at 156-162.
Id. at 160.
Id. at 160-161.
Id. at 162.
Id. at 164.
Id. at 41.
Id. at 41-43.