12 Decision G.R. No. 215988 No costs. SO ORDERED. 43 (Emphasis in the original) After filing their notices of appeal, 44 Cordillera Global Network and Adajar, et al. filed their respective appeals45 before the Court of Appeals. In its December 12, 2014 Decision, 46 the Court of Appeals denied the appeals and upheld the findings of the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals dismissed Cordillera Global Network and Adajar, et al. 's claim that the case fell under the exceptions to the rule c i exhaustion of administrative remedies since there was no patent illegality. lL pointed out that despite not being parties to the applications for the environmental compliance certificates, tree-cutting and earth-balling permits, and building permits, they still should have come to the appropriate administrative tribunals to resolve questions of fact. Such questions are generally referred to an administrative agency for its "special knowledge [and] experience ... to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. " 47 Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that Cordillera Global Network and Adajar, et al. failed to rebut the presumption of regularity of official acts. It explained that they failed to prove their allegations of irregularity in the issuance of the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate, building permit, and tree-cutting and earth-balling permit. 48 The dispositive pmiion of the Court of Appeals Decision read: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. 49 (Emphasis in the original) On March 6, 2015, Cordillera Global Network filed a Petition £ r Review on Certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. 50 On March 24, 2015, this Court required respondents to comment on the Petition. It also issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining private 43 44 ' 15 16 ' 47 48 49 50 Id. at 218. Id. at 25. Id. at 25 and I 25-198. Adajar, et al. 's Appeal Brief was not in the rollo. Id. at 93-124. Id. at I09-I IO. Id.atll0-111. Id. at 122-123. Id. at 12-92. y