Case Digest: National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), et al. v. Macroasia Corporation G.R. No. 226176, August 9, 2023 ROSARIO

 

FACTS

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) questioned before the Supreme Court the Court of Appeals' Amended Decision directing the NCIP to issue a Certification Precondition in favor of Macroasia Corporation in connection with its mining operations under Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) No. 220-2005-IVB in Brooke's Point, Palawan. The controversy stemmed from the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) process required under the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA), where the NCIP had earlier denied the issuance of the Certification Precondition despite recommendations from various field and validation teams.

While the petition was pending before the Supreme Court, Macroasia assigned its rights under the MPSA to Macroasia Mining Corporation. The latter conducted a new and separate Field-Based Investigation (FBI) and FPIC process for the indigenous cultural communities in the indirectly affected barangays, as required by the NCIP. After the new FPIC process, the concerned Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) issued their consent, and the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement.

In view of these developments, NCIP and Macroasia Mining Corporation negotiated and executed a Compromise Agreement. They jointly manifested before the Supreme Court that they had amicably settled all issues in the case and filed a Joint Motion to Render Judgment Based on the Compromise Agreement, praying that the case be terminated in accordance with their settlement.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Compromise Agreement executed by the NCIP and Macroasia Mining Corporation may be approved by the Supreme Court and serve as the basis for the disposition of the pending petition.

Whether or not the Compromise Agreement was voluntarily entered into by the parties and whether its terms were valid, lawful, and not contrary to existing laws, morals, public policy, public order, or good customs.

Whether or not the pending Petition for Review on Certiorari should be terminated based on the parties' amicable settlement instead of resolving the issues originally raised in the petition.

HELD

The Supreme Court granted the Joint Motion and approved the Compromise Agreement. The Court found that the agreement was voluntarily executed by the parties and that its terms were neither contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, nor public policy. Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, a compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Since the agreement complied with the requirements of law, the Court gave it full force and effect.

The Court likewise recognized the validity of the settlement because it resolved the issues that gave rise to the petition. It noted that Macroasia Mining had already undertaken a separate FBI and FPIC process for the indirectly affected barangays and that the concerned ICCs/IPs had issued their consent. The parties also agreed that Macroasia Mining would continue complying with all applicable mining laws, rules, regulations, and NCIP requirements, while the NCIP would continue exercising its regulatory functions over the project.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court adopted the Compromise Agreement as the judgment in the case and enjoined the parties to faithfully comply with all its terms and conditions. Since the controversy had been amicably settled, the Court declared the case CLOSED and TERMINATED, without passing upon the substantive issues originally raised in the petition. The decision was rendered pursuant to the parties' valid compromise and not on the merits of the original dispute.