G.R. No. 198538 - Exocet Security and Allied Services Corp. vs. Serrano

Petitioner, Pyro Copper Mining Corporation, is a duly organized mining corporation that applied for a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA).
On 31 March 2000, Pyro’s Application for Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (APSA-SF-000089) was approved, and MPSA No. 153-2000-1 was issued covering a 4,360.71-hectare area in Dasol, Pangasinan.
Private respondent, Montague Resources Philippines Corporation, also organized under Philippine corporate law and engaged in mining, filed an Application for Exploration Permit on 12 September 2003 covering the same properties.

Pyro Copper Mining Corporation filed a Verified Protest/Opposition contesting the Application for Exploration Permit of Montague Resources, alleging overlapping claims and other irregularities.
The protest was allegedly filed with the DENR-Panel of Arbitrators on 30 August 2005 (received on 5 September 2005) in Case No. 2005-00012-I, though issues later arose regarding whether it was filed timely and in proper form.
Prior to the filing of the Verified Protest/Opposition, Pyro’s MPSA No. 153-2000-1 had already been canceled pursuant to DENR Memorandum Order (DMO) No. 2005-03 issued on 1 February 2005.
Pyro moved for reconsideration regarding its MPSA cancellation, but the DENR Secretary denied its relief in a Decision dated 14 June 2005.

Dissatisfied with the administrative decisions, petitioner elevated its protest by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97663.
The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution on 23 February 2007 dismissing petition for failure to attach pertinent documents required under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Pyro, along with an attachment purportedly establishing that Atty. Vicente R. Acsay, a board member and legal counsel, had authority to sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.
However, Pyro failed to submit convincing proof of Atty. Acsay’s authority beyond a Minutes of the Special Meeting dated 22 January 2007 that limited his authorization to signing a specific Motion for Extension of Time.
The Court of Appeals then issued a Resolution on 6 September 2007, again denying Pyro’s petition for lack of merit, specifically on non-compliance with the certification and verification requirements.

Whether the Minutes of the Special Meeting dated 22 January 2007 sufficiently granted Atty. Acsay the authority to sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping accompanying the Petition for Review.
Whether such authorization extended from signing a Motion for Extension of Time to also include the Petition for Review itself.

Whether Pyro’s Verified Protest/Opposition was filed within the 30-day reglementary period computed from the last date of publication/posting of the Exploration Permit application.
Whether the filing by registered mail on 30 August 2005, compounded by the non-payment of the docket fee until 6 September 2005, constituted a timely filing.

Whether the omission of a proper certification against forum shopping in the Verified Protest/Opposition was a procedural defect that justifies dismissal.
Whether the rules mandate that any initiatory pleading—in this case, a verified protest—must be accompanied by such certification even for corporate litigants.

Whether the subsequent issuance of EP No. 05-001 to the private respondent and the cancellation of MPSA No. 153-2000-1 rendered Pyro’s protest moot and academic.
Whether the Panel of Arbitrators had jurisdiction to cancel, deny, or revoke an already issued Exploration Permit.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Review solely on the non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.