KABUGAO, Apayao – The Special 3rd Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) junked a petition seeking to revoke or annul the Certification Precondition (CP) issued by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) for the 150-megawatt Gened-1 and 250-megawatt Gened-2 hydroelectric power projects of renewable energy developer Pan Pacific Renewable Power Philippines Corporation (PPRPPC) in the Province of Apayao.
In a 3-page resolution signed by Associate Justices Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, Luis P. Acosta and Roberto P. Quiroz, the CA stated that assuming that the petitioners availed of the correct mode of appeal, the action filed will still be dismissed because they failed to attach a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed resolution from the NCIP.
Further, the appellate court claimed that the petitioners failed to state the date of receipt of the said assailed resolution aside from failing to attach pertinent pleadings or documents and such material records of the case.
The CA also found out that the petitioners failed to attach a verification/certification against forum shopping and the date of issuance of the Mandatory Continuing Learning Education (MCLE) certificate of compliance number was not indicated by the petitioners’ counsel.
According to the resolution, petitioners should have filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 and considering that they availed of the wrong mode of appeal, the instant action must be dismissed.
Under Section 63 of the 2018 NCIP Rules of Procedure, decisions or final orders of the Commission En Banc may be appealed to the CA only by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
On July 19, 2023, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal with Formal Entry of Appearance assailing the May 9, 2023 Resolution of the NCIP that granted the CP for the implementation of the 150-megawatt Gened-1 and 250-megawatt Gened-2 hydroelectric power projects of PPRPPC that will be constructed in the Province of Apayao.
On August 3, 2023, Private Respondent PPRPPC filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss Ad Cautelam asserting that petitioners availed of the wrong mode of appeal and that the correct mode of appeal is by way of a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and not via Notice of Appeal under Rule 41.
Moreover, the private respondent contended that assuming that what was actually filed was a Petition for Review under Rule 43, still, the instant action must be dismissed because petitioners failed to attach a verification and certification against forum shopping as well as certified true copies of relevant portions of the case records as required under the rules.
Section 6 of Rule 43 requires the statement of the full names of the parties to the case without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgement, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to and other supporting papers and contain a sworn certification against forum.
Section 7 of Rule 43 stated that the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the aforesaid 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 of the same.