[G.R. No. 161436.

June 23, 2004]

OTADAN vs. RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORP.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 23 2004.

G.R. No. 161436 (Lipin Otadan, et al. vs. Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation.)

Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 26, 2004 filed by the petitioners of
this Court's Resolution dated February 23, 2004 denying their petition for review on
certiorari for late filing, the Court resolved to DENY WITH FINALITY said motion for lack of
merit. It is axiomatic that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the
period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and the failure to
perfect the appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[1]

Moreover, the petitioners mainly assail the Decision dated September 30, 2003 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75014 finding no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
when he issued the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) No. 0201-021-313 to
the respondent Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation for its Hydrometallurgical Processing
Plant in Barangay Rio Tuba, Municipality of Bataraza, Palawan. The issuance of the ECC
is an exercise by the Secretary of the DENR of his quasi-judicial functions. This Court has
consistently held that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the
sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities
coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency.[2] It
has also been held that the exercise of administrative discretion is a policy decision and
a matter that can best be discharged by the government agency concerned, and not
by the courts.[3] This Court has likewise consistently adhered to the principle that
factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but
even finality and are binding even upon the Supreme Court if they are supported by
substantial evidence.[4] Further, administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in
the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of its adjudicative functions. This latitude
includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within its special competence.[5]
The petitioners failed to present compelling reasons to warrant the deviation by this
Court from the foregoing salutary principles.

Likewise, the petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Attached Motion for Extension of Time
and Amended Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

The Opposition dated May 7, 2004 filed by the respondent, the Letters, in the
vernacular, dated May 8, 2004, of the Katutubong Palawan at Katutubong Mulbog ng
Barangay Sarong, Bataraza, Palawan and the undated Separate Letters, in the
vernacular, of the residents of Barangay Iwahig, Sarong, and Rio Tuba, Bataraza,
Palawan are NOTED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

[1] Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 673 (2000).

[2] Republic v. Express Telecommunications, Co., Inc., 373 SCRA 316 (2002)
[3] Ibid.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.