GR 179674; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179674 ; July 28, 2009
PYRO COPPER MINING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MINES AND GEO-SCIENCES BUREAU DIRECTOR HORACIO C. RAMOS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR SAMUEL T. PARAGAS, REGIONAL PANEL OF ARBITRATORS ATTY. CLARO E. RAMOLETE, JR., ATTY. JOSEPH ESTRELLA and ENGR. RENATO RIMANDO, and MONTAGUE RESOURCES PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pyro Copper Mining Corporation held a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) over mining claims in Dasol, Pangasinan. Private respondent Montague Resources Philippines Corporation later filed an Application for Exploration Permit covering the same area. Petitioner filed a Verified Protest/Opposition with the Panel of Arbitrators. Prior to this filing, however, petitioner’s MPSA had been cancelled by the DENR Secretary, and the MGB had already issued an Exploration Permit (EP No. 05-001) to Montague. The Panel of Arbitrators dismissed petitioner’s protest, citing it was filed out of time, was moot due to the issued permit, and lacked a certification against forum shopping. The Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) affirmed the dismissal.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43. The CA dismissed the petition for failure to attach required pertinent documents under Section 6, Rule 43. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the omitted documents. Respondents, however, pointed out that the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping in the petition was signed by a member of petitioner’s board without proof of his authority to sign for the corporation. Given an opportunity to submit proof, petitioner failed to do so. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration, leading to this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for procedural lapses, specifically the failure to attach documents and to show the signatory’s authority for the certification against forum shopping.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural rules. The requirement to attach relevant documents under Section 6, Rule 43 is mandatory. The subsequent submission in a motion for reconsideration does not cure the initial fatal omission, as the court’s jurisdiction is not properly invoked without a complete petition. Furthermore, the rule on certification against forum shopping requires that for a corporation, the signatory must show proof of authority. This is a requirement of utmost importance to prevent forum shopping. Petitioner’s failure to attach the required board resolution or secretary’s certificate authorizing Atty. Acsay to sign constituted a fatal defect. While procedural rules may be relaxed for compelling reasons, petitioner did not present any such justification. The Court found no reversible error in the CA’s application of the rules, as procedural technicalities, when strictly applied, ensure the orderly administration of justice. The dismissal of the petition for these procedural infirmities was therefore proper.