SC drops case vs 3 mining firms

 By Jomar Canlas, TMT April 1, 2021

https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/04/01/news/regions/sc-drops-case-vs-3-mining-firms/858220/

 

THE Supreme Court (SC) has junked a plea filed by a group in connection with its environmental case against three mining companies and a government agency in Surigao City.

In a full court ruling dated Feb. 16,2021 but was released just recently, the SC dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Anislagan Bantay Kalikasan Task Force, Inc. (ABAKATAF) led by its chairperson, Lourdes Dapar; Lower Anislagan Farmers Irrigators Association (LAFIA), Inc., represented by its president, Daniel Gonzales.

Impleaded in the petition were Presiding Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco-Bayana, Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Surigao City; Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Mines and Geosciences Bureau-Region 13 (Caraga); Manila Mining Corporation; Kalayaan Copper Gold Resources, Inc.; Silangan Mindanao Mining Co., Inc.

The group assailed the May 20, 2011 order of the RTC of Surigao City, Branch 30, requiring them to comply with a set of directives involving the authority of Dapar and Gonzales to represent their respective groups.

It stemmed from a complaint for injunction with moral damages and with urgent ex parte application for temporary environmental protection order and environmental protection order filed by petitioners against the firms and DENR before the lower court on June 22, 2010.

In resolving the motion for reconsideration, the trial court rendered the assailed order, requiring petitioners (1) to submit a board resolution showing authority of petitioners Dapar and Gonzales to represent petitioners ABAKATAF and LAFIA, Inc., respectively; (2) to comply with Section 1 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on substitution of parties; (3) to amend the complaint with respect to petitioner minor Jonathan Badillo; and (4) to submit proof of written authority of petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Mary Grace Ellen Villanueva, to represent them.

They believed that Yuipco-Bayana’s order had been rendered with grave abuse of discretion because it allegedly ran afoul with the objective of the rules of procedure for environmental cases to provide a simplified, speedy, inexpensive procedure in suits for the protection of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

They likewise informed the court in their petition that the RTC already dismissed the complaint through its Aug. 15, 2011 order.

The order stated that the dismissal was due to Atty. Villanueva’s failure to appear during the pre-trial and trial hearing scheduled on June 13, 2011, as well as petitioners’ failure to comply with the assailed order.

However, they manifested that after they moved to reconsider the order of dismissal, they filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The appellate court denied their appeal and affirmed RTC’s order dismissing the complaint.

The CA found unjustifiable Villanueva’s absence during the pre-trial and trial hearing, as well as her failure to comply with the assailed order.

Due to the developments in the case, the tribunal denied the petition.

The SC cited the case of Flores v. Gonzales as the court “explained that where no practical relief may be granted to a party in view of a supervening event, this court will refrain from making a declaration.”

“Where a declaration on an issue would have no practical use or value, this court will refrain from expressing its opinion in a case where no practical relief may be granted in view of a supervening event. Thus, it is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question, as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced,” the ruling, promulgated by Clerk of Court Edgardo Aricheta, stated.

“Here, petitioners pray that the assailed order be nullified and that petitioners’ omnibus motion to present evidence ex parte or to declare respondents in default, and to set the case for trial, be granted.”

However, considering that the complaint has already been dismissed, and that petitioners no longer appeal the dismissal to this court — leading to the order of dismissal attaining finality — there would no more be any practical relief to petitioners. Setting the case for trial is clearly no longer possible at this point,” it added.