ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 161436.
OTADAN vs. RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORP.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 161436 (Lipin Otadan, et al. vs. Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation.)
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration dated
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] cralaw 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] cralaw 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] cralaw 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] cralaw 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
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 673 (2000).
[2] cralaw Republic v. Express Telecommunications, Co., Inc., 373 SCRA 316 (2002)
[3] cralaw Ibid.
[4] cralaw Id.
[5] cralaw Id.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
