E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 9 of 40 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65160 expansion, as private respondents claimed, but a totally new project.[64] Petitioners further state that neither an environmental impact assessment nor public consultations were conducted before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued the tree-cutting and earth-balling permit. They maintain that private respondents only consulted small groups, when various groups and residents expressed their opposition to the Expansion Project.[65] They further insist that the Court of Appeals unduly expanded the ruling in Lina v. Paño[66] to favor private respondents.[67] Petitioners further posit that the Court of Appeals erred when it relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties despite evidence to the contrary.[68] Citing Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Aklan,[69] petitioners further assert that as a nonparty to an application for an environmental compliance certificate, it was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before it could bring its case to a court of law.[70] In their Comments,[71] private respondents claim that petitioners raised questions of fact improper in a petitioner for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[72] Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation add that the Petition was defective since out of the 202 claimed petitioners, only 30 signed the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping.[73] Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation then state that the case has been rendered moot because: (1) the subject permits have already expired or have been amended, superseded, or suspended; and (2) the affected trees have been removed.[74] Moreover, private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation[75] and public respondents[76] both point out that petitioners failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. Public respondents assert that prematurely resorting to a court of law amid available administrative remedies was fatal to petitioners' case.[77] Additionally, public respondents confirm that the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate dated September 22, 2011 was legally and validly issued. They also confirm that in this case, a separate environmental compliance certificate was not needed before a tree-cutting or earth-balling permit could be issued. They claim that a separate environmental compliance certificate would only be superfluous since the tree-cutting and earth-balling activities were already part of the implementation of the Expansion Project covered by the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate dated September 22, 2011.[78] 4/23/2020, 10:52 AM