GR 226176; (August, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 226176 . August 9, 2023.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP), ZENAIDA BRIGIDA HAMADA-PAWID, DIONESIA O. BANUA, CONCHITA C. CALZADO, PERCY BRAWNER, COSME LAMBAYON, SANTOS UNSAD, AND BASILIO WANDAG, PETITIONERS, VS. MACROASIA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners against respondent Macroasia Corporation, seeking to reverse and set aside the Amended Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 124632. The case originated from Macroasia’s application for a Certification Precondition from the NCIP for its Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) No. 220-2005-IVB in Brooke’s Point, Palawan. The NCIP initially issued a Certificate of Compliance in 2006. After a subsequent FPIC process in 2010, Pala’wan leaders from directly affected barangays issued a Joint Resolution of Consent and executed a Memorandum of Agreement with Macroasia. However, the NCIP En Banc later denied the issuance of the Certification Precondition, primarily on the ground that a separate Field-Based Investigation (FBI)/FPIC process was required for the two indirectly affected barangays (Aribungos and Barong-barong). Macroasia appealed to the CA, which directed the NCIP to issue the Certification Precondition. The NCIP’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of the Petition before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the Supreme Court case, Macroasia Corporation assigned its rights under the MPSA to Macroasia Mining Corporation. Macroasia Mining subsequently conducted the separate FBI/FPIC process for the two indirectly affected barangays in August 2022, which culminated in the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with the IP leaders. The parties then agreed to settle amicably and submitted a Joint Motion to Render Judgment Based on a Compromise Agreement dated February 1, 2023.
ISSUE
Whether the Compromise Agreement executed by the parties is valid and should be approved by the Court to terminate the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Joint Motion and APPROVED the Compromise Agreement. The Court found the Compromise Agreement to be validly executed and not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, and public order. The parties were enjoined to comply with its terms in utmost good faith. Accordingly, the case was deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED based on the Compromise Agreement.
The Compromise Agreement stipulated that: (1) Macroasia Mining conducted the separate FBI/FPIC process for Barangays Aribungos and Barong-barong in compliance with the NCIP’s earlier resolution; (2) the process was properly conducted and validated; (3) the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) of both directly and indirectly affected barangays issued a Joint Resolution of Consent; (4) the ICC/IP leaders of the directly affected barangays affirmed their continued approval; and (5) Macroasia Mining had provided support to the barangays. The parties’ obligations included Macroasia Mining continuing to secure all necessary permits, the NCIP continuing its review and providing recommendations, and the parties jointly moving for the dismissal of the case. The parties agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of G.R. No. 226176 .