June 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011]
ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. PLACER DOME, INC.
"G.R. No. 195482 (ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. PLACER DOME, INC.)
RESOLUTION
In the Resolution dated 8 March 2011, the Court granted petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and for the service of said writ as well as the summons issued in the case, by their counsel and representative, Civic Action Group Ltd./APS International, Ltd. In the same resolution, the Court likewise ordered respondents Placer Dome, Inc. (PDI) and Barrick Gold Corporation (BGC) to make a verified return of the same writ and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for hearing, reception of evidence and rendition of judgment. On 29 March 2011, the Court additionally issued a resolution granting petitioners' motion for the inclusion of AI Legal Service & Training Ltd. and Select Document Services among those authorized to serve summons on respondents, on the ground that Civic Action Group Ltd./APS International, Ltd. had limited their services to the United States of America.
Subsequent to its filing of a 29 March 2011 Urgent Motion to Suspend Filing of Return, BGC filed a 31 March 2011 Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction, questioning the constitutionality of Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (AMC No. 09-6-8-SC) as well as the validity of the issuance and service of summons in the case. On 4 April 2011, BGC also filed a Return Ad Cautelam, accompanied by a Manifestation dated 4 April 2011, undertaking to submit within a reasonable time the authenticated copies of the sworn statements attached to said Return in view of time constraints. On 12 April 2011, the Court issued a Resolution noting the foregoing motions and incidents and requiring petitioners to file their comment to BGC's Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction.
On 12 April 2011, petitioners also filed an Urgent Motion of even date, seeking leave to serve summons upon respondents through any of in the means provided under Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. As amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC which was issued on 15 March 2011, said provision allows service of summons through any of the following means to a foreign private juridical entity not registered in the Philippines or without a resident agent, viz.: (a) by personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs; (b) by publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by registered mail at the last known address of the defendant; (c) by facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; and, (d) by such other means as the court may in its discretion direct.
On 18 April 2011, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Compliance dated 15 April 2011, submitting the affidavit executed by Brian Nolan of the Civic Action Group Ltd./APS International, Ltd. attesting to the 25 March 2011 service of summons on BGC. Without prejudice to the Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction it earlier filed, BGC in turn filed a Submission dated 19 April 2011, proffering the original authenticated copies of the affidavits executed by Debra Bilous and James Donald Robertson and reiterating its commitment to submit within a reasonable time the authenticated copies of the other affidavits attached to its Return Ad Cautelam. On 6 May 2011, Sycip Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan, BGC's counsel of record, filed a Manifestation dated 5 May 2011 stating, among other matters, that they have been served with copies of petitioners' Notice of Deposition, Interrogatories and Motion for Production of Inspection of Documents (Discovery Papers) intended for their client, in connection with the proceedings pending before the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 00001; that being for the limited purpose of raising constitutional and jurisdictional issues, their special appearance is not of such nature as would authorize them to receive said Discovery Papers for and in behalf of BCG.
On 12 May 2011, petitioners filed their Manifestation with Reiterated Motion dated 11 May 2011, alleging that they have received a copy of the 3 May 2011 Manifestation and Motion filed before the CA by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), praying that petitioners be directed to manifest whether they have already caused the service of summons upon PDI and, if not, to coordinate with the OSG with respect to the mode of service as well as the manner of payment thereof; that although it had been served with copies of their petition and its annexes by registered mail, PDI has yet to be served with summons; and, that while they are willing to coordinate with the OSG regarding the mode and manner of payment for the service of summons to PDI, the Court has yet to resolve their motions for the inclusion of AI Legal Service & Training Ltd. and Select Document Services among those authorized to serve summons on respondents and for the service of summons in accordance with Section 12, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
On 17 May 2011, BGC filed a Clarificatory Manifestation dated 16 May 2011, alleging that it received the Resolution dated 4 May 2011 issued by the CA's First Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 00001, the decretal portion of which states:
"ACTING on the pending incidents, We hereby resolve as follows:
1) 2) SO ORDERED."
BGC calls the attention of the Court to the fact, among other matters, that the foregoing resolution is in conflict with our resolution dated 12 April 2011 which required petitioners to file their comment to its Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction; and, that consequently, there is a need to clarify which court exercises jurisdiction over the case in order to shed light to the procedural paths available to the parties. Subsequent to its filing of a Submission dated 18 May 2011 submitting the original of the authenticated affidavit of Geoffrey Marlow, BGC filed a Manifestation dated 6 June 2011 reiterating the need for said clarification, in view of petitioners' filing on 2 June 2011 of their Opposition to its Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, petitions for the Writ of Kalikasan "shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals." It was in consonance with this provision that, on 8 March 2011, the Court issued the Resolution which, after granting the Writ of Kalikasan sought by petitioners, referred the case to the CA for hearing, reception of evidence and rendition of judgment. Considering said referral of the case to the CA, its re-docketing of the petition as CA-G.R. SP No. 00001 and its conduct of proceedings relative thereto, it is imperative that the various motions and incidents filed by the parties, together with the entire records of the case, be likewise referred to said Court in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and in the interest of the orderly and expeditious conduct of the proceedings in the case. With respect to petitioners' Manifestation with Reiterated Motion dated 11 May 2011, attention is, however, called to the fact that the motion for the inclusion of AI Legal Service & Training Ltd. and Select Document Services among those authorized to serve summons on respondents had already been granted in the Court's 29 March 2011 Resolution.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the records of the case are REFERRED to the CA, for appropriate action on the various motions and incidents filed by the parties."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
