Decision 15 G.R. No. 215988 Moreover, private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation75 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 Public respondents maintain that social acceptability, as understood by petitioners, is not required to issue an environmental compliance certificate. Instead, what is required is the stakeholders' participation in the environmental impact assessment process. Nonetheless, public respondents note that even if this was not mandatory, private respondents still conducted public consultations and submitted a report on social acceptability. 79 Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation allege that petitioners erred in relying on Lina, which categorically stated that public projects needed public consultation but was silent on a similar requirement for private projects. 80 They likewise claim that Boracay Foundation, Inc. does not apply in petitioners' case. 81 On the issue of validity of the issued permits, private respondent SM Investments Corporation refutes petitioners' claim that Baguio City's central business district is a low-density commercial zone over which a large mall or parking lot could not be constructed. It points out that petitioners' own witness, Engineer Evelyn Cayat (Engineer Cayat) of the City Planning and Development Office, testified that SM City Baguio satisfied the zoning requirements. 82 Private respondent SM Investments Corporation also disputes petitioners' allegation that the Expansion Project is "a regional mall with an 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Id. at 676-678. Id. at 2724. Id. at 2724. Id. at 2718-2719. Id. at 2712-2713. Id. at 659-660. Id. at 660-662. Id. at 428. /