MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF MARINDUQUE, HON. EMARIE ANN F. PASTORAL, in her capacity as the ACTING PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF MARINDUQUE, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF BOAC, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF STA. CRUZ, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF MOGPOG, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF TORRIJOS, and THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF MARINDUQUE

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 111111111111111111 25-000634-0004 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA AC NO. 370 MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF MARINDUQUE, HON. EMARIE ANN F. PASTORAL, in her capacity as the ACTING PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF NOTICE OF RESOLUTION MARINDUQUE, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF BOAC, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF STA. CRUZ, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF MOGPOG, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF TORRIJOS and THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF MARINDUQUE, Respondents. To: CHUA LIM AND ASSOCIATES ( Counselfor the Petitioner) Unit 304, 3rd Floor, The Orient Square Bui lding F. Ortigas Jr. Road (Ex-Emerald Avenue) Ortigas Center, Pasig City ATTY. ROMMEL P . FERNANDEZ (Counsel for the Respondents) Provinc ial Legal Officer Capitol Compound, Bangbangalon Boac, Province ofMarinduque SEDALAW SALAZAR ENRILE DEFENSOR & DE MATA (Collaborating Counselfor Respondents) Suite l l 07, l l th Floor, Tektite East Tower Phil ippine Stock Exchange Centre Exchange Road, Ortigas Center Pasig City HON. EMMANUEL R. RECALDE Presiding Judge Thru: MR. ELMIR H. MIRAFUENTE OIC I Acting Branch Clerk of Court Regional T rial Court Fomi: Judicial Region Page 1 of2

Branch 38 Boac, Marinduque GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on October 9, 2025,a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, October 10, 2025. Atty. Maria~. Chan-Te Executive~ourt II Page 2 of2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City FIRST DIVISION MARCOPPER MINING CTAAC NO . 370 CORPORATION , Appellant, (Civil Case No. 23-7) -versus- THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF MARINDUQUE, HON. EMARIE Members: ANN F. PASTORAL in her capacity as the ACTING BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF and MARINDUQUE, MUNICIPAL CUI-DAVID, JJ. TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF BOAC, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF STA. CRUZ, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF MOGPOG, MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF TORRIJOS, and THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF MARINDUQUE, Promulgated : x __ __ ___ __________ ~~~~~~e_e_s: __QGJ_~ ~-: ~: ~ ___ __ x RESOLUTION Before th is Court is appellant Marcopper Mining Corporation 's (appellant's) Notice of Appeal dated 22 April 20251 and filed via LBC on 25 April 2025 and approved by Branch 38, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Boac, Marinduque in its Order dated 30 May 2025.2 Consequently, the entire records of Civil Case No. 23-7, consisting of _.. ��' ten (1 0) volumes of records with 5,987 pages and four (4) volumes of transcript of stenographic notes (TSN), were transmitted to this Court on 15 July 2025. RTC Re cords, Vo lume IX, pp. 4903-4905. 2 Id ., pp. 4907-4908 .

RESOLUTION CTA AC NO. 370 Marcopper Mining Corporation v. The Provincial Government of Marinduque, et. a!. Page 2 of3 X---------------------------------------------------------------- X A perusal of the records reveals that appellant, instead of filing a verified petition for review as required under Sections 3(a)3 and 4(a)4 , Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) in relation to Rule 426 of the Rules of Court (ROC), as amended, filed a notice of appeal from the RTC Decision dated 27 December 20247 and Resolution dated 04 April 20258, rendered in the exercise of the RTC's original jurisdiction. By way of analogy, Section 2, Rule 50 of the ROC, as amended, provides: Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. - An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of Jaw shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed. An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.9 SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period tojile petition.- (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture. or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Couti by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes. (Emphasis supplied) SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode ofappeal.- (a) An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade & Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal. (Emphasis supplied) Rule 8 - Procedure in Civil Cases. Rule 42 - Petition for Review From the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals. RTC Records, Volume VIII, pp. 4762-4772. ld., Volume IX, pp. 4895-4898. 9 Emphasis supplied.

RESOLUTION CTA AC NO. 370 Marcopper Mining Corporation v. The Provincial Government of Marinduque, et. a!. Page 3 of3 X---------------------------------------------------------------- X Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the filing of the wrong mode of appeal is a ground for the dismissal thereof. 10 Consequently, the RTC Decision dated 27 December 202411 and Resolution dated 04 April 202512 have become final and executory. The improper appeal did not toll the reglementary period to file a petition for review on certiorari. 13 This means that appellant has now lost its remedy against the trial court's ruling. 14 On this point, the Court reiterates that appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in accordance with law. A party who seeks to avail of the privilege must comply with the requirements of the rules lest the right to appeal is invariably lost. The Court cannot tolerate ignorance of the law on appeals and it is not Our task to determine for litigants their proper remedies under the rules. 15 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Notice of Appeal dated 22 April 2025 is hereby DISMISSED for being an improper remedy. SO ORDERED. ( JEAN MARIE<1s~O-VILLENA A~i~te Justice ~an~. LANEE S. CUI~OAVID Associate Justice 10 See East West Banking Corporation v. fan Y. Cru:::, Paul Andrew Chua Hua, Francisco T Cruz, and Alvin Y. Cruz, G.R. No. 221641, 12 July 2021. II Supra at note 7. Supra at note 8. 13 East West Banking Corporation v. fan Y. Cru::::, Paul Andrew Chua Hua, Francisco T Cruz, and Alvin Y. Cruz, supra at note 10. 14 See Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr. v. Court ofAppea/s (F(jih Division) and Nelia S. Silverio- Dee, G.R. No. 178933, 16 September 2009. 15 See Ebrencio F. /ndoyon, Jr., Municipal Treasurer, Lingig, Surigao del Sur v. Court c~f Appeals, Twenty-Second Division, Cagayan de Oro City, G.R. No. 193706, 12 March 2013.