SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 220828, October 07, 2020
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. APEX MINING COMPANY INC., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated December 22, 2014 and the Resolution3 dated September 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 133927. The assailed CA Decision reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated October 28, 2009 of the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in MAB Case Nos. 0156-07 and 0157-07; and declared Apex Mining Company, Inc. (Apex) to have prior and preferential rights in its applications for mineral production sharing agreement with the DENR. The assailed CA Resolution, on the other hand, denied the Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated December 22, 2014)5 filed by the Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC).
I. By Mining Lease Contracts -NDMC had two mining projects in the Province of Compostela Valley, namely: (1) the Amacan Copper Project, which commenced commercial operation in August 1982 and ceased in May 1992; and (2) the Hijo Gold Project, which commenced in May 1980 and ceased in 1985.8II. By Published Lode Lease Applications -
- Owned by NDMC:
LLC No. V-523 granted on January 22, 1965
MLC No. MRD-155 granted on December 13, 1978
MLC No. MRD-156 granted on December 13, 1978
MLC No. MRD-157 granted on December 13, 1978
MLC No. MRD-158 granted on December 13, 1978- Under Operating Agreement with NDMC:
MLC No. MRD-290 granted on March 22, 1982
- LLA No. V-14203 Amd published in the newspaper on November 18, 1982 and posted on the same date.
- LLA No. 14204 [sic]6 published in the newspaper on March 31, 1988 and posted on the same date.
- LLA No. V-14205 published in the newspaper of general circulation [on] March 31, 1988 and posted on the same date.7
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is GRANTED. The decision of the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) dated October 28, 2009 and resolution dated December 26, 2013 in MAB Case No. 0156-07 and MAB Case No. 0157-07, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Apex Mining Company, Inc. is declared to have prior and preferential right in its applications for mineral production sharing agreement with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources pursuant to Section 29 of Rep. Act No. 7942, covering areas subject of its applications, particularly, Clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as shown in Annex 7 of the Panel of Arbitrators' decision dated July 4, 2006 with Clusters 1 and 2 to be amended to conform to the plotting of LLA No. V-14203-Amd and LLA No. V-14205 as mentioned in the Mines Adjudication Board's decision dated October 28, 2009.The CA found that under Republic Act No. (RA) 7942,43 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the requirements for the filing and approval of mineral agreements are different from the requirements for the filing and approval of FTAA applications. The CA relied on the ruling in the case of Diamond Drilling Corp. of the Phils. v. Newmont Phils., Inc.44 (Diamond Drilling Corporation), which applied Section 845 of DENR Administrative Order No. 63. Series of 1991 (DAO 63),46 stating in part that priority shall be given to the applicant that first filed its application over the same area. Thus, as between the MPSA applications of Apex and the FTAA application of NDMC, the CA held that Apex should be given priority since it filed its MPSA applications over the contested mining areas on April 21, 1995 and on July 26, 1996, while NDMC filed its FTAA application only on January 8, 1996.
SO ORDERED.42chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT APEX HAS PRIOR AND PREFERENTIAL RIGHT OVER APT/NDMC BY VIRTUE OF ITS EARLIER MPSA APPLICATION.Essentially, the main issue to be resolved in this case is: Who between the PMDC, as the successor-in-interest of NDMC, and Apex has preferential rights over the contested mining areas?II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT AT THE TIME OF APEX' MPSA APPLICATION, THE SUBJECT MINING AREAS ARE NOT YET CLOSED TO MINING APPLICATIONS.III
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE MINES AND ADJUDICATION BOARD COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN UPHOLDING NDMC/APT'S MINING LEASE CONTRACTS OR PUBLISHED LODE LEASE APPLICATIONS.IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE MAB COMMITTED AN ERROR IN DECLARING NDMC/PMDC TO HAVE PREFERENTIAL RIGHT IN ITS FTAA APPLICATION DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7942.V
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT APT'S FILING OF FTAA IN THE NAME OF NDMC IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE STATE'S INTENTION TO EXPLORE, DEVELOP, AND UTILIZE THE COUNTRY'S NATURAL RESOURCES.56chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I. The factual findings of the MAB are treated with deference in recognition of its expertise and technical knowledge over disputes relative to mining rights; they are deemed conclusive and binding on the parties. |
However, based on the records of the MGB-RO No. XI, the Panel is convinced that NDMC has better rights to the claims comprising Cluster "5." APEX's APSA (XI) 112 dated 26 July 1995, (consisting of the "Edgar-IV, V and VI" blocks) appears to have been filed over areas considered closed to mining because the latter are subject to the earlier Commonwealth Act No. 137 claims of NDMC ("RA" claims). x x x75chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe POA cited Section 19(c) of RA 7942 which provides that mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement applications shall not be allowed "in areas covered by valid and existing mining rights."
II. Apex, not being a holder of valid and existing mining claims and lease/quarry applications over the contested areas prior to the effectivity of RA 7942, cannot be granted a preferential right to enter into any mode of mineral agreement under Section 113 of RA 7942, Section 273 of the IRR of RA 7942, and Section 8 of DMO 97-07. |
Section 113 of RA 7942NDMC filed its FTAA application on January 8, 1996, while Apex filed its MPSA applications on April 21, 1995 and on July 26, 1996. Notably, the applications of NDMC and Apex over the same mining areas were all filed before September 15, 1997, the mandatory deadline set for the filing of mineral agreement applications by holders of valid and existing mining claims and lease/quarry applications.
Section 113. Recognition of Valid and Existing Mining Claims and Lease/Quarry Applications. - Holders of valid and existing mining claims, lease/quarry applications shall be given preferential rights to enter into any mode of mineral agreement with the government within two (2) years from the promulgation of the rules and regulations implementing this Act.
Section 273 of the IRR of RA 7942
Section 273. Recognition of Valid and Existing Mining Claims and Lease/Quarry Applications.
Holders of valid and existing mining claims, lease/quarry applications shall be given preferential rights to enter into any mode of Mineral Agreement with the Government until September 14, 1997: Provided, That failure on the part of the holders of valid and subsisting mining claims, lease/quarry applications to exercise their preferential rights within the said period to enter into any mode of Mineral Agreements shall constitute automatic abandonment of the mining claims, quarry/lease applications and the area thereupon shall be declared open for mining application by other interested parties.
Section 8 of DMO 97-07
Section 8. Claimants/Applicants Required to File Mineral Agreement.
Only holders of mining claims and lease/quarry applications filed prior to the effectivity of the Act which are valid and existing as defined in Section 5 hereof who have not filed any Mineral Agreement applications over areas covered by such mining claims and lease/quarry applications are required to file Mineral Agreement applications pursuant to Section 273 of the IRR on or before September 15, 1997; Provided, that the holder of such a mining claim or lease/quarry application involved in a mining dispute/case shall instead file on or before said deadline a Letter of Intent to file the necessary Mineral Agreement application; Provided, further, That if the mining claim or lease/quarry application is not determined to be invalid in the dispute/case, the claimant or applicant shall have thirty (30) days from the final resolution of the dispute/case to filed the necessary Mineral Agreement application; Provided, finally, that failure by the claim 1t or applicant to file the necessary Mineral Agreement application within said thirty (30) days period shall result in the abandonment of such claim or application, after which, any area covered by the same shall be opened for Mining Applications.
Holders of such valid and existing mining claims and lease/quarry applications who had filed or been granted applications other than those for Mineral Agreements prior to September 15, 1997 shall have until such date to file/convert to Mineral Agreement applications, otherwise, such previously filed or granted applications shall be cancelled.
III. NDMC's FTAA application had closed the areas covered by Clusters 1 to 6 to other mining applications. |
The case of NDMC, however, should be taken differently. Here is a situation where Government's interest is directly at stake. With NDMC at the hands of the Asset Privatization Trust (APT), it has assumed the character of a government-owned entity and, therefore, it cannot be placed in the same level with private mining applicants. A cursory review of the Mining Act, the Revised IRR and DMO No. 97-07 will show that practically all these regulatory provisions, save for the provision on Government Gratuitous Permit, refer to mineral resources disposition by contractors.The Court observes that the MOB issued the above Memorandum in the exercise of its quasi-judicial power. Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law.85 The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it.86x x x
Hence, this Office is of the position that the FTAA application of NDMC is acceptable, not because there is no prohibition in the law allowing holders of valid and existing mining claims and lease/quarry applications to enter into other modes of mining rights other than Mineral Agreements, but solely because of direct Government's interest.84chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It bears stressing that the subject mining claims were among the assets/properties transferred by PNB to the National Government. Thereafter, a certificate of sale over [NDMC]'s properties was issued to APT being then [sic] highest bidder. Pursuant to E.O. 323, the [NDMC] assets, among others, were turned over to PMO from the COP/APT. Then the assets/properties were transferred to the NRMDC, now PMDC, as trustee and disposition entity. Finally, on 07 April 2006, the PMDC and the National Government executed a Trust Agreement whereby the mining assets of x x x NDMC were transferred, conveyed and assigned to PMDC to develop and/or dispose of said properties.88chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryTaking the foregoing antecedents into consideration, the Court affirms the MGB's determination that the FTAA application of NDMC should be treated differently and should be understood as the State's exercise of its right of ownership over NDMC's mining claims. In accepting NDMC's FTAA application, the MGB in this case merely recognized the rights of the Government to the mining property of NDMC, who held valid and existing mining claims over the contested areas. The application was not an FTAA application per se, considering that the Government cannot enter into an agreement with itself. By reason of the Government's direct interest over the mineral property of NDMC, the FTAA application was meant to close to other mining applications the areas over which the NDMC had mining claims. Apparently, these areas were among those ordered closed by then Acting DENR Secretary Antonio G. M. La Viña through his issuance of the Memorandum89 dated September 17, 1997, which enjoined all MGB Regional Directors to close to new mining locations or applications those areas covered by valid and existing mining claims held in trust by APT or other similar entities.
Section 4. Ownership of Mineral Resources. - Mineral resources are owned by the State and the exploration, development, utilization, and processing thereof shall be under its full control and supervision. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral agreements with contractors.Thus, the Court holds that the CA erred in concluding that the FTAA application should not be considered as the State's intention to explore, develop, and utilize the country's natural resources. To insist that the Government should enter into a specific mineral agreement under RA 7942 would be a direct affront to its power to fully control and supervise the exploration, development, and utilization of the country's mineral resources. Ultimately, it amounts to depriving the State of its ownership of all natural resources.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 16-55.
2Id.at 59-93; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring.
3Id. at 94-98.
4Id. at 810-817; signed b, Chairman Jose L. Atienza, Jr., and Members Eleazar P. Quinto and Horacio C. Ramos.
5Id.at 99-117.
6 Should be "LLA No. V-14204."
7 See Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) Decision dated October 28, 2009, rollo, p. 811.
8Id.
9Id.
10Id. at 54-163.
11 Entitled "Proclaiming and Launching a Program for the Expeditious Disposition and Privatization of Certain Government Corporations and/or the Assets Thereof, and Creating the Committee on Privatization and Asset Privatization Trust."
12 See Regional Panel of Arbitrators (POA), Mines and Geosciences Bureau Decision dated July 4, 2006 in MAC No. POA 98-003 (XI), rollo, p. 604.
13Id.
14Id.
15 See Notice of Application for Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement of North Davao Mining Corporation , id. at 164.
16 See POA Decision dated July 4, 2006, id. at 605.
17Id. at 179.
18Id. at 563-593.
19Id. at 812.
20Id.
21Id.
22Id.
23Id.
24 Entitled "Constituting an Inter-Agency Privatization Council (PC) and Creating a Privatization and Management Office (PMO) under the Department of Finance for the Continuing Privatization of Government Assets and Corporations," signed on December 6, 2000.
25 See MAB Decision dated October 28, 2009, rollo, pp. 812-813.
26Id. at 813.
27Id.
28 RE: Incorporation of the Natural Resources Mining and Development Corporation under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Memorandum from the President, signed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on April 9, 2003.
29Rollo, p. 813.
30Id. at 180-185.
31 See Secretary's Certificate, dated April 15, 2007, id. at 186.
32Id. at 594-616; signed by Chairperson Ma. Mercedes Villarosa-Dumagan, and Members Maximo G. Lim and Roberto Luis F. de la Fuente.
33Id. at 617-663.
34 See Court of Appeals Decision dated December 22, 2014, id. at 69.
35Id. at 665-672.
36Id. at 673-795, 796-809.
37Id. at 810-817.
38Id. at 818-860.
39Id. at 864-872; signed by Chairman Ramon J.P. Paje, and Members Leo L. Jasareno and Demetrio L. Ignacio, Jr.
40Id. at 411-556.
41Id. at 59-93.
42Id. at 92-93.
43 Entitled "An Act Instituting a New System of Mineral Resources Exploration, Development, Utilization, and Conservation," approved on March 3, 1995.
44 664 Phil. 688 (2011).
45 Section 8 of Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 63,Series of 1991 (DAO 63) reads:
SEC. 8. Acceptance and Evaluation of FTAA. - All FTAA proposals shall be filed with and accepted by the Central Office Technical Secretariat (MGB) after payment of the requisite fees to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, copy furnished the Regional Office concerned within 72 hours. The Regional Office shall verify the area and declare the availability of the area for FTAA and shall submit its recommendations within thirty (30) days from receipt. In the event that there are two or more applicants over the same area, priority shall be given to the applicant who first filed his application. In any case, the Undersecretaries for Planning, Policy and Natural Resources Management; Legal Services, Legislative, Liaison and Management of FASPO; Field Operations and Environment and Research, or its equivalent, shall be given ten (10) days from receipt of FTAA proposal within which to submit their comments/recommendations and the Regional Office, in the preparation of its recommendation shall consider the financial and technical capabilities of the applicant, in addition to the proposed Government share. Within five (5) working days from receipt of said recommendations, the Technical Secretariat shall consolidate all comments and recommendations thus received and shall forward the same to the members of the FTAA Negotiating Panel for evaluation at least within thirty (30) working days. (Italics supplied)
46 Guidelines for the Acceptance, Consideration and Evaluation of Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement Proposals; signed on December 12, 1991.
47 Section 113 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7942 reads:
Section 113. Recognition of Valid and Existing Mining Claims and Lease/Quarry Applications. - Holder of valid and existing mining claims, lease/quarry applications shall be given preferential rights to enter into any mode of mineral agreement with the government within two (2) years from the promulgation of the rules and regulations implementing this Act.
48 Section 273 of DAO 96-40 reads:
Section 273. Recognition of Valid and Existing Mining Claims and Lease/Quarry Applications.
Holders of valid and existing mining claims, lease/quarry applications shall be given preferential rights to enter into any mode of Mineral Agreement with the Government until September 14, 1997: Provided, That failure on the part of the holders of valid and subsisting mining claims, lease/quarry applications to exercise their preferential rights within the said period to enter into any mode of Mineral Agreements shall constitute automatic abandonment of the mining claims, quarry/lease applications and the area thereupon shall be declared open for mining application by other interested parties.
49 "Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7942, Otherwise Known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995," dated December 19, 1996.
50 Section 8 of DENR Memorandum Order No. 97-07 (DMO 97-07) reads:
Section 8. Claimants/Applicants Required to File Mineral Agreement
Only holders of mining claims and lease/quarry application; filed prior to the effectivity of the Act which are valid and existing as defined in Section 5 hereof who have not filed any Mineral Agreement applications over areas covered by such mining claims and .lease/quarry applications are required to file Mineral Agreement applications pursuant to Section 273 of the IRR on or before September 15, 1997; Provided, that the holder of such a mining claim or lease/quarry application involved in a mining dispute/case shall instead file on or before said deadline a Letter of Intent to file the necessary Mineral Agreement application; Provided, further, That if the mining claim or lease/quarry application is not determined to be invalid in the dispute/case, the claimant or applicant shall have thirty (3) days from the final resolution of the dispute/case to filed the necessary Mineral Agreement application; Provided, finally, that failure by the claimant or applicant to file the necessary Mineral Agreement application Within said thirty (30)-day period shall result in the abandonment of such claim or application, after which, any area covered by the same shall be opened for Mining Applications.
Holders of such valid and existing mining claims and lease/quarry applications who had filed or been granted applications other than those for Mineral Agreements prior to September 15, 1997 shall have until such date to file/convert to Mineral Agreement applications, otherwise, such previously filed or granted applications shall be cancelled.
51 "Guidelines In The Implementation Of The Mandatory September 15, 1997 Deadline For The Filing Of Mineral Agreement Applications By Holders Of Valid And Existing Mining claims And Lease/Quarry Applications And For Other Purposes," dated August 27, 1997.
52 Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution reads:
Section 2. All land of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
53Rollo, pp. 99-117.
54Id. at 121-132.
55Id. at 94-98.
56Id. at 26-27.
57Alecha, et al. v. Atienza, et al., 795 Phil. 126, 143 (2016).
58Id., citing Japson v. Civil Service Commission, 663 Phil. 665, 675 (2011).
59Id.
60 See Sections 77 to 79 of LA 7942.
61Heirs of Eliza Q. Zoleta v. Land Bank of the Phils., et al., 816 Phil. 389, 410 (2017), citing Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., 492 Phil. 682, 692 (2005).
62 See Section 77 of RA 7942.
63 See Section 78 of RA 794.
64Carpio v. Sulu Resources Devt. Corp., 435 Phil. 836, 849 (2002).
65 Section 10, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court reads:
Section 10. Due course. - If upon the filing of the comment or such other pleadings or documents as may be required or allowed by the Court of Appeals or upon the expiration of the period for the filing thereof, and on the records the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the court or agency concerned has committed errors of fact or law that would warrant reversal or modification of the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, it may give due course to the petitioner; otherwise, it shall dismiss the same. The findings of fact of the court or agency concerned, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.
66Naredico, Inc. v. Krominco, Inc., G.R. No. l96892, December 5, 2018, citing JMM Promotions & Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 439 Phil. 1, 10-11 (2002); Sps. Calvo v. Sps. Vergara, 423 Phil. 939, 947 (2001); Hon. Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., 538 Phil. 348, 397 (2006).
67 See POA Decision dated July 4, 2006, id. at 610.
68 Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 463 partly reads:
SECTION 48. Protests ad Adverse Claims. x x x
In the case of an adverse claim against a lease application, filed under Section 34 hereof, such adverse claim shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after the first date of publication of the notice of lease application if such claim was not previously investigated and decided under Presidential Decree No. 309. When an adverse is filed under this paragraph, all proceedings, except the publication of the notice of application for lease, the submittal of the affidavit in connection therewith and the processing of application for temporary permit, shall be stayed until the controversy is settled or decided by the Director: Provided, That the operations and production under a mines temporary permit issued prior to the adverse claim shall be allowed to continue subject to the provisions of Section 33 concerning the posting of bonds.
69 Entitled "Providing for a Modernized System of Administration and Disposition of Mineral Lands and to Promote and Encourage the Development and Exploitation Thereof" dated May 17, 1974.
70 See POA Decision dated July 4, 2006, rollo, p. 610.
71Id. at 611.
72Id. at 615.
73 See MAB Decision dated October 28, 2009, id. at 815; see also ANNEX "O" of Petition for Review, id. at 210-258.
74 See MAB Decision dated October 28, 2009, id. at 815
75Id. at 615.
76 See POA Decision dated July 4, 2006, id. at 616.
77Id.
78Dept. of Agrarian Reform v. Samson, et al., 577 Phil. 370, 381 (2008).
79Id. at 381-382.
80 See Alecha, et al. v. Atienza, et al., supra note 57 at 144-145. Citations omitted.
81Section 5 of DMO 97-07 defines "valid and existing mining claims and lease/quarry applications." It reads:
Section 5. Valid and Existing Mining Claims and Lease/Quarry Applications
For purposed of this Order, a mining claim shall be considered valid and existing if it has complied with the following requirements.Provided, That the holder of a mining claim DOL was filed between July 19, 1988 and January 4, 1991 with or without a Letter of Intent to file for a Mineral Agreement application, shall be given up to September 15, 1997 to file the necessary Mineral Agreement application.
- For a mining claim which Declaration of Location (DOL) was filed within the period form July 19, 1987 to July 18, 1988, it must be covered by a timely and duly filed Application for Survey and Survey Returns (if a Survey Order was issued);
- For a mining claim which DOL was filed under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463 as mended, Presidential Decree No. 1214 and the CMAO as Amended but not later than July 18, 1997, it must be covered by a timely and duly tiled Application for Mining Lease, Applications for Survey and Survey Returns (if a Survey Order was issued);
- For a mining claim located/filed under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 137 and/or earlier laws, it must be covered by a timely and duly filed Applications for Availment under Presidential Decree No. 463 as Amended, Application for Mining Lease, Application for Survey and Survey Returns (if a Survey Order was issued).
For purposes of this Order, a mining lease application shall be considered valid and existing only if all mining claims contained in such lease application are valid and existing as defined in this section, while applications for Quarry Licenses and Quarry Permits filed prior to April 9, 1995 shall be considered valid and existing if the concerned applicant had timely and duly filed the Application for Survey and duly submitted the Survey Returns (is the Survey Order was issued).
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, a mining claim or lease/quarry application over which an order of rejection or cancellation has been issued shall not be considered valid and existing as of the date of issuance of such order.
82Rollo, pp. 280-327.
83Id. at 290.
84 As culled from the Comment dated March 18, 2016, id. Underscoring omitted.
85The Chairman and Executive Director, Palawan Council For Sustainable Development, et al. v. Lim, 793 Phil. 690, 698 (2016).
86Id.
87Rollo, pp. 810-817.
88Id. at 814.
89Id. at 179.
90Rep. of the Phils. v. Hachero, et al., 785 Phil. 784, 797 (2016).cralawredlibrary