Case Summary (G.R. No. 212607)
Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal Before NCIP RHO IV
PDSPI filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 10, 2012, which NCIP RHO IV denied on December 18, 2012. PDSPI received that order on December 21, 2012. Pursuant to Sec. 46, Rule IX of the 2003 NCIP Rules, the 15th day after receipt fell on Saturday, January 5, 2013, extending the deadline to Monday, January 7. PDSPI timely filed its Memorandum on Appeal on January 7, 2013.
NCIP RHO IV’s Dismissal Order
On January 14, 2013, NCIP RHO IV ruled the appeal late, reasoning that PDSPI’s prior motion for reconsideration consumed part of the appeal period, leaving only one day remaining upon receipt of the denial order. NCIP viewed no fresh 15-day period applied.
CA’s Resolution and Ground of Dismissal
CA dismissed PDSPI’s certiorari petition, invoking the exhaustion of administrative remedies. It held PDSPI should have filed a second motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order before seeking certiorari. CA also noted formal defects: failure to date the counsel’s MCLE compliance number and a defective jurat. On reconsideration, CA found formal defects cured but reaffirmed dismissal under the exhaustion doctrine.
Issue
Whether CA correctly applied the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies to bar certiorari relief from NCIP RHO IV’s dismissal order.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- NCIP RHO IV erred in treating a fresh appeal period as unavailable. Under Sec. 46, Rule IX of the 2003 NCIP Rules, a new 15-day period runs from receipt of the denial order when a motion for reconsideration is filed. PDSPI complied by filing on January 7, 2013.
- A second motion for reconsideration was impermissible. The 2003 NCIP Rules limit parties to one motion for reconsideration before the RHO (Sec. 45).
- An appeal from an order dismissing an appeal cannot itself be appealed to the NCIP En Banc: under Rule 41, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (applied suppletorily by Sec. 97, Rule XVII), only final orders disposing of a case are appealable.
- Exceptions to exhaustion doctrine apply: the issue is purely legal (interpretation of reglementary periods) and the dismissal order was patent
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212607)
Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
- On August 15, 2011, Andrew Abis filed with NCIP Regional Hearing Office IV (NCIP RHO IV) a complaint entitled “Andrew Abis v. Puerto Del Sol Resort/Michael Batchelor,” docketed NCIP Case No. 038-RIV-11, for unauthorized and unlawful intrusion with prayer for TRO, injunction, and damages.
- Abis alleged that he and his predecessors-in-interest of the Cuyunen Tribe had occupied and cultivated the property in Sitio Orbin, Brgy. Concepcion, Busuanga, Palawan as ancestral land since time immemorial.
- The complaint charged Puerto Del Sol Palawan, Inc. (PDSPI), through Michael Batchelor, with placing “no trespassing” signs, installing armed guards, destroying tribal crops, and developing a resort on ancestral lands.
- NCIP RHO IV found the TRO sufficient in form and substance and issued it on August 22, 2011.
- PDSPI filed an Answer on September 8, 2011, denying any overlap with ancestral domain.
- After hearing, NCIP RHO IV rendered its Decision on November 22, 2012 in favor of Abis, concluding that the resort was within Cuyunen ancestral land and that PDSPI unlawfully intruded.
- PDSPI received the Decision on November 29, 2012 and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 10, 2012 (filed December 13, 2012); this motion was denied by Order dated December 18, 2012 (received December 21, 2012).
Procedural History Before NCIP RHO IV
- PDSPI filed its Memorandum on Appeal on January 7, 2013, arguing that the 15th day from receipt of the denial (January 5, 2013) fell on a Saturday.
- On January 14, 2013, NCIP RHO IV denied due course to the appeal for being filed beyond the reglementary period, reasoning that PDSPI had only one