[G.R. No. 161436. June 23, 2004] OTADAN vs. RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORP. SECOND DIVISION Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 23 2004. G.R. No. 161436 (Lipin Otadan, et al. vs. Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation.) Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 26, 2004 filed by the petitioners of this Court's Resolution dated February 23, 2004 denying their petition for review on certiorari for late filing, the Court resolved to DENY WITH FINALITY said motion for lack of merit. It is axiomatic that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[1] 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] It has also been held that the exercise exer cise of administrative discretion is a policy poli cy decision and a matter that can best be discharged by the government agency concerned, and not by the courts.[3] 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] Further, administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in i n the exercise of o f its adjudicative functions. This latitude includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within its special competence.[5] 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 [1] Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 673 (2000). [2] Republic v. Express Telecommunications, Co., Inc., 373 SCRA 316 (2002) [3] Ibid. [4] Id. [5] Id.
