THIRD DIVISION
|
PYRO COPPER MINING CORPORATION, petitioner, - versus - MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, MINES AND GEO-SCIENCES BUREAU DIRECTOR HORACIO C. RAMOS, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR SAMUEL T. PARAGAS, REGIONAL PANEL OF ARBITRATORS ATTY. CLARO E.
RAMOLETE, JR., ATTY. JOSEPH ESTRELLA and ENGR. RENATO RIMANDO, and MONTAGUE
RESOURCES PHILIPPINES CORPORATION,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 179674 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July 28, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before
this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to reverse
the Resolutions dated 23 February 2007[1]
and 6 September 2007[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
97663. The appellate court, in its
assailed Resolution dated
Petitioner
additionally prays for the setting aside or reversal of the Decision[4]
dated 28 December 2006 of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR)-Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) in MAB Case No. 0147-06, which affirmed
the Orders dated 14 September 2005[5]
and 27 December 2005[6] of
the DENR-Panel of Arbitrators, Region 1, San Fernando City, La Union (Panel of
Arbitrators), in Case No. 2005-00012-I, dismissing the Verified
Protest/Opposition of petitioner to the Application for Exploration Permit of private
respondent Montague Resources Philippines Corporation. Ultimately, petitioner seeks the denial of
the mining claim and the revocation/cancellation of the Exploration Permit,
EXPA No. 21 dated
The
factual antecedents of this case are as follows:
Petitioner
is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws engaged in
the business of mining. On
Private
respondent is also a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Prior,
however, to petitioner’s filing of its Verified Protest/Opposition to the
private respondent’s Application for Exploration Permit, petitioner’s MPSA No.
153-2000-1 was cancelled per DENR Memorandum Order (DMO) No. 2005-03[10]
issued by the DENR Secretary Michael Defensor on 1 February 2005. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of
DMO No. 2005-03, which the DENR Secretary denied in its Decision[11]
dated
On
In an Order dated 14 September 2005, the Panel of Arbitrators
dismissed motu proprio the Verified
Protest/Opposition of petitioner for the following reasons: (1) the instant
pleading was filed out of time; (2) in view of the issuance of EP No. 05-001 to
private respondent, the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner to the
Application for Exploration Permit of private respondent was rendered moot and
academic; (3) the Panel of Arbitrators had no authority/jurisdiction to cancel,
deny and/or revoke EP No. 05-001 of private respondent, the same being lodged
with the MGB, the issuing authority; and (4) petitioner failed to include a
certification against forum shopping.[14] Petitioner moved for its reconsideration, but
the Panel of Arbitrators denied the same in its Order dated
Petitioner elevated by appeal to the
MAB the Orders dated 14 September 2005 and 27 December 2005 of the Panel of
Arbitrators, docketed as MAB Case No.
0147-06.
Subsequently,
in a Decision[16] dated
Petitioner
filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97663.
In
a Resolution dated
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the
Petitioner
was given an opportunity to submit Atty. Acsay’s written authority, but failed
to do so. Consequently, the Court of
Appeals issued a Resolution dated
Hence,
this Petition.
The
petitioner raises the following issues for this Court’s Resolution:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE [COURT OF APPEALS] DEPARTED FROM THE RULES AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION [A QUO] DESPITE FAITHFUL COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES ON DISCLOSURE AS INCORPORATED IN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION PORTION OF THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION [OF] TIME AND PETITION A QUO.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE [COURT OF APPEALS] DEPARTED FROM THE RULES AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION A QUO DESPITE THE ATTACHMENT AND SUBMISSION OF THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY TO MAKE AND SIGN VERIFICATIONS AND SUBSEQUENTLY REQUIRED PLEADINGS.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE [COURT OF APPEALS] REFUSED TO
ADJUDICATE THE PETITION A QUO
DESPITE THE ATTENDANCE OF A CLEARLY EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER AND
IV. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENTS IN THE DENR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DECLARING THAT: (A) THE VERIFIED PROTEST/OPPOSITION WAS FILED OUT OF TIME; (B) THE ISSUANCE OF THE EXPLORATION PERMIT IN FAVOR OF [PRIVATE RESPONDENT] ON [1 SEPTEMBER 2005] AND THE UNILATERAL CANCELLATION OF THE MPSA BY THE DENR-SECRETARY RENDERED THE VERIFIED PROTEST/OPPOSITION MOOT AND ACADEMIC; (C) THE [PANEL OF ARBITRATORS] HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO CANCEL, DENY AND/OR REVOKE THE EXPLORATION PERMIT OF [PRIVATE RESPONDENT]; AND (D) THE VERIFIED PROTEST/OPPOSITION DOES NOT CONTAIN A CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.[21]
To
resolve the foregoing issues, the Court must address the more specific issues below:
I.
Whether the subsequently attached Minutes of the
Special Meeting dated
II. Whether the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner to the Application for Exploration Permit of private respondent was filed out of time.
III. Whether the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner filed before the MAB needs to be accompanied by a Certification against Forum Shopping.
IV. Whether the issuance by the DENR Secretary of DMO No. 2005-03 on 1 February 2005 which cancelled MPSA No. 153-2000-1 of petitioner and the issuance by MGB of EP No. 05-001 in favor of private respondent on 1 September 2005 rendered the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner moot and academic.
V. Whether the Panel of Arbitrators has jurisdiction to cancel, deny and/or revoke EP No. 05-001 issued by MGB to private respondent.
The Court finds no merit in the present
Petition.
I
Petitioner
maintains that there are special circumstances and basic considerations in
support of Atty. Acsay’s authority to execute and sign the Verification and
Certification against Forum Shopping which accompanied its Petition in CA-G.R.
SP No. 97663. Firstly, Atty. Acsay is an incorporator, stockholder, member of the
board of directors, corporate secretary, and legal counsel of petitioner. Secondly,
he was the authorized representative of petitioner in the signing of MPSA No.
153-2000-1. Therefore, Atty. Acsay is
the best legally suitable person to make the required sworn disclosures in the
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping in the Petition of
petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 97663.
Petitioner
also contends that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 January 2007 by the
board of directors of petitioner, bestowing upon Atty. Acsay the authority to
make and sign the Verification for the Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,
must be construed in its entirety. According
to the Minutes, Atty. Acsay was granted authority by the board to sign even
verifications, which may be required in subsequent pleadings filed by
petitioner. The reference in the Minutes
to the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review is not meant to
be restrictive or qualifying, as to exclude other pleadings.
With
the foregoing, petitioner firmly argues that it has substantially complied with
the requirements for the execution of the Verification and Certification
against Forum Shopping, which accompanied its Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 97663.
Section
6(d), Rule 43[22] in
relation to Section 2, Rule 42[23]
of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a petition for review
shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping, in which the
petitioner shall attest that he has not commenced any other action involving
the same issues in this Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or
proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter
learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before
this Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and
other tribunal or agency thereof within five days therefrom.[24]
For
failure to comply with this mandate, Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. – The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The
requirement that petitioner should sign the Certification against Forum
Shopping applies even to corporations, the Rules of Court making no distinction
between natural and juridical persons.[25] A corporation, however, exercises its powers
through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and
agents. Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed
only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or
by a specific act of the board of directors.[26] The
signatory, therefore, in the case of the corporation should be “a duly
authorized director or officer of the corporation” who has knowledge of the
matter being certified.[27]
If
the petitioner is a corporation, a board resolution authorizing a corporate
officer to execute the Certification against Forum Shopping is necessary. A
certification not signed by a duly authorized person renders the petition
subject to dismissal.[28]
To
recall, the Court of Appeals initially dismissed, in its Resolution dated
RESOLVED, that [Atty. Acsay], Director and Corporate Secretary of [herein petitioner] be, as he hereby is, authorized to make and sign the verification of the pleading filed by [petitioner] entitled “Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.[29]
It
can be gleaned from the afore-quoted Resolution of the board of directors of
petitioner that the authority granted to Atty. Acsay was to make and sign the
pleading entitled “Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,” but not the Petition for Review
itself. The wordings of the board
Resolution are so explicit that they cannot be interpreted otherwise. There is nothing to justify the argument of
petitioner that the authority to sign granted to Atty. Acsay by the said board
Resolution extended to all other pleadings subsequent to the Motion for
Extension.
Other
than the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on
Although
the Court has previously relaxed the rules on verification and certification
against forum shopping in some instances,[31] it
cannot do so here.
From
the very beginning, petitioner failed to attach to its Petition for Review before
the Court of Appeals the relevant documents required by Section 6, Rule 43 of
the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure. Petitioner
had two opportunities to comply with the requisites, i.e., when it filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the 23
February 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals and when it submitted its
compliance with the 8 June 2007 Resolution of the appellate court; yet,
petitioner still failed to do so. Petitioner
never offered any satisfactory explanation for its stubborn non-compliance with
or disregard for the rules of procedure.
It
is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, and that the rules
of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial
justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored
at will and at random, to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and
assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized
that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their
non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantial
rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for
the most persuasive of reasons.[32]
II
Even
assuming arguendo that Atty. Acsay
did have the authority to sign the Verification and Certification against Forum
Shopping for the Petition for Review of petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 97663, and
the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing said Petition, the Court still cannot
grant the prayer of petitioner herein to reverse the actions undertaken by the
DENR as regards the cancellation of its MPSA No. 153-2000-1 and the issuance of
EP No. 05-001 to private respondent.
Petitioner
insists that it filed its Verified Protest/Opposition to the Application for
Exploration Permit of private respondent within the reglementary period. Based on the records of MGB, the Notice of
Application for Exploration Permit of private respondent was actually posted
from
Section
21 of DAO No. 96-40 mandates:
Section 21. Publication/Posting/Radio Announcement of an Exploration Permit Application. - x x x Any adverse claim, protest or opposition shall be filed directly, within thirty (30) calendar days from the last date of publication/posting/radio announcement, with the concerned Regional Office or through any concerned PENRO or CENRO for filing in the concerned Regional Office for purposes of its resolution by the Panel of Arbitrators pursuant to the provisions of the Act and these implementing rules and regulations. x x x.
Considering that the Rules on
Pleadings, Practice and Procedure before the Panel of Arbitrators and MAB are
bereft of any provision regarding the computation of time and the manner of
filing, the Court may refer to Section 1, Rule 22 and Section 3, Rule 13 of the
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,[33]
which state:
Section 1. How to compute time. – In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 3. Manner of filing. - The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the present case, notices of the
Application for Exploration Permit of private respondent were published in newspapers,[34]
announced on the radio,[35]
and posted in public places. The posting
was done the latest, so we reckon the last possible date petitioner could have
validly filed its Verified Petition/Opposition with the Panel of Arbitrators therefrom.
The
notices of the Application for Exploration Permit of private respondent were
posted on the bulletin boards of the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Dasol,
Pangasinan on 16 to 31 March 2005; Office of the Municipal Mayor of Mabini,
Pangasinan on 16 to 31 March 2005; Office of the Pangasinan Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources on 17 March 2005 to 2 April 2005; Office of
the DENR Provincial Environment and Natural Resources-Pangasinan on 15 March
2005 to 6 April 2005; Office of the DENR Community Environment and Natural
Resources-Alaminos City on 17 March 2005 to 5 April 2005; Offices of the Punong
Barangays of Malimpin, San Pedro, Barlo, San Vicente, and Alilao on 16 to 31
March 2005; and MGB on 14 to 28 July 2005.[36]
Since the notice of the Application
for Exploration Permit of private respondent was last posted on
Section 21 of DAO No. 96-40, fixing
the 30-day reglementary period for filing any adverse claim/protest/opposition
to an application for exploration permit, must be read in relation to Section
204 of DAO No. 96-40, which reads:
Section 204. Substantial Requirements for Adverse Claims, Protest and Oppositions. No adverse claim, protest or opposition involving mining rights shall be accepted for filing unless verified and accompanied by the prescribed docket fee and proof of services to the respondent(s), either personally or by registered mail: Provided, That the requirement for the payment of docket fees shall not be imposed on pauper litigants[;] (Emphasis supplied.)
and
Section 7, Rule III of the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure before
the Panel of Arbitrators and MAB, which states that:
Section 7. Form and Contents of Adverse Claims, Protest or Opposition. No adverse claim, petition, protest or opposition involving mining rights shall be accepted for filing unless verified and accompanied by the prescribed docket fee and proof of services to the respondent(s), either personally or by registered mail: Provided, That the requirement for the payment of docket fees shall not be imposed on pauper litigants. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 204 of DAO No. 96-40 and
Section 7, Rule III of the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure before the
Panel of Arbitrators and MAB explicitly require that the adverse
claim/protest/opposition be accompanied by the payment of the prescribed docket
fee for the same to be accepted for filing.
Upon a careful examination of the
records of this case, it appears that the docket fee was paid only on 6 September 2005, as evidenced by
Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 7478283 B.[40] Although petitioner avers that it paid the docket
fee through postal money order – in which case, the date of mailing would be
deemed the date of payment – such averment is unsubstantiated. The Court finds no evidence to prove that
petitioner actually sent the purported postal money order for the payment of
the docket fee. Petitioner submits the
following evidence to prove payment of the docket fee: (a) a Prudential Bank
Check in the amount of P5,020.00 dated
Based on the foregoing, the Verified
Protest/Opposition of petitioner to the Application for Exploration Permit of
respondent is deemed filed with the Panel of Arbitrators only upon payment of
the prescribed docket fee on
III
The Panel of Arbitrators denied the
Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner in Case No. 2005-00012-I for another
procedural lapse, the lack of a certification against forum shopping.
Petitioner
argues that a Verified Protest/Opposition does not require a certification
against forum shopping. According to it,
Section 204 of DAO No. 96-40 identifies the substantial requirements of a
mining adverse claim/ protest/opposition, and a certification against forum
shopping is not among them; the Panel of Arbitrators has no power and authority
to impose additional requirements for the filing and service of pleadings; the
Panel of Arbitrators also does not have the authority to promulgate rules and
regulations involving the practice, pleadings, litigation and disposition of
cases before it, for the same only belongs to the MAB, pursuant to Section 207
of DAO No. 96-40.
The
arguments of petitioner have no merit.
Petitioner
filed a Verified Protest/Opposition before the Panel of Arbitrators to oppose
the Application for Exploration Permit filed by private respondent with the MGB. The Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner
constitutes an initiatory pleading before the Panel of Arbitrators, for which a
certification against forum shopping may be required. Truly, DAO No. 96-40 is bereft of any
provision requiring that a certification against forum shopping be attached to
the adverse claim/protest/opposition.
However, Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules on Pleading, Practice and
Procedure before the Panel of Arbitrators and the MAB allows the application of
the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court by analogy or in a suppletory
manner, in the interest of expeditious justice and whenever practical and
convenient; and, according to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Hence, the requirement by the Panel
of Arbitrators and the MAB that a certification against forum shopping be attached
to initiatory pleadings filed before them, to ascertain that no similar actions
have been filed before other courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies, is
not arbitrary or baseless. The lack of
such a certification is a ground for the dismissal of the Verified
Protest/Opposition of petitioner.
IV
The
Panel of Arbitrators dismissed the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner
for a third reason: that the same has become moot and academic, given that the DENR
Secretary already issued DMO No. 2005-03 on 1 February 2005 canceling MPSA No.
153-2000-1 and MGB issued EP No. 05-001 to private respondent on
However, petitioner asserts that MPSA
No. 153-2000-1 has not been finally cancelled or revoked, considering the
pendency of the legal remedies it availed itself of for DMO No. 2005-03. The issuance of DMO No. 2005-03 by the DENR
Secretary, and of EP No. 05-001 by MGB pursuant thereto, should not render the
Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner moot and academic.
The
position of petitioner is untenable.
It must be stressed that the
cancellation of MPSA No. 153-2000-1 of petitioner by the DENR Secretary in DMO
No. 2005-03 is already the subject of separate proceedings. The Court cannot touch upon it in the
Petition at bar.
Also worth stressing is that petitioner
filed a Verified Protest/Opposition
to the Application for Exploration
Permit of private respondent. When
the application was approved and the exploration permit issued to private
respondent, petitioner had nothing more to protest/oppose. More importantly, with the issuance by MGB
of EP No. 05-001 to private respondent, the remedy of petitioner is to seek the
cancellation thereof, over which, as subsequently discussed herein, the Panel
of Arbitrators would have no jurisdiction.
The Panel of Arbitrators cannot simply consider or convert the Verified
Protest/Opposition of petitioner to the Application for Exploration Permit of
private respondent as a petition for the cancellation of EP No. 05-001. Since the Panel of Arbitrators can no longer
grant petitioner any actual substantial relief by reason of the foregoing
circumstances, then the Verified Protest/Opposition of petitioner was
appropriately dismissed for being moot and academic.
V
Finally,
petitioner posits that Section 77 of Republic Act No. 7942 and Sections 202 to
203 of its Implementing Rules vest the Panel of Arbitrators with the jurisdiction
to entertain and accept any claim, protest or opposition filed directly with its
office. In the discharge thereof, the
office and function bestowed upon the Panel of Arbitrators include the power
and authority to deny clearances, exclude exploration permits, and not to
accept or entertain the same.
The Court disagrees.
Section 77 of Republic
Act No. 7942 establishes the jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators, thus:
Sec. 77. Panel
of Arbitrators. – x x x. Within
thirty (30) working days, after the submission of the case by the parties for
decision, the panel shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear
and decide on the following:
a.
Disputes
involving rights to mining areas;
b. Disputes
involving mineral agreements or permits;
c.
Disputes involving
surface owners, occupants and claimholders/concessionaires; and
d.
Disputes pending before the Bureau and the
Department at the date of the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis supplied.)
In Olympic Mines and Development Corporation v. Platinum Group Metals
Corporation[43] citing Celestial Nickel Mining
Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corporation,[44]
this Court made the following pronouncements as regards paragraphs (a) and (b)
of Section 77 of Republic Act No. 7942:
In Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corporation, et al., this Court speaking through Justice Velasco, specified the kind of disputes that fall under Section 77(a) of the Mining Act:
The phrase “disputes involving
rights to mining areas” refers to
any adverse claim, protest, or opposition to
an application for a mineral agreement.
x x x x
[T]he power of the POA to resolve any adverse
claim, opposition, or protest relative to mining rights under Section 77 (a) of RA 7942 is confined only to adverse claims,
conflicts, and oppositions relating to
applications for the grant of mineral
rights. x x x. Clearly, POA’s jurisdiction
over “disputes involving rights to mining areas”
has nothing to do with the cancellation of existing
mineral agreements. (Emphases
supplied.)
x x x x
Parenthetically, the “permit”
referred to in Section 77(b) of the Mining
Act pertains to exploration permit,
quarry permit, and other mining
permits recognized in Chapters IV, VIII, and IX of the Mining Act. An
operating agreement, not being among those listed, cannot be considered as a “mineral permit” under
Section 77 (b). (Emphases supplied.)
It is clear from the ruling of the Court in
Olympic Mines and Celestial Nickel Mining that the Panel
of Arbitrators only has jurisdiction over adverse claims, conflicts, and
oppositions relating to applications for the grant of mineral rights, but not
over cancellation of mineral rights already granted and existing.
As
to who has jurisdiction to cancel an existing exploration permit, Section 28 of
DAO NO. 96-40 explicitly provides:
Section 28. Cancellation of an Exploration Permit. – The Director/concerned Regional Director may cancel the Exploration Permit for failure of the Permittee to comply with any of the requirements and for violation(s) of the terms and conditions under which the Permit is issued. For renewed Exploration Permits, the Secretary upon the recommendation of the Director shall cause the cancellation of the same.
According
to Section 5 of DAO No. 96-40, “Director” means the Director of the MGB Central
Office, while “Regional Director” means the Regional Director of any MGB Regional
Office. As the authority to issue an Exploration
Permit is vested in the MGB, then the same necessarily includes the corollary
power to revoke, withdraw or cancel the same.[45] Indisputably, the authority to deny, revoke,
or cancel EP No. 05-001 of private respondent is already lodged with the MGB,
and not with the Panel of Arbitrators.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
of petitioner Pyro Copper Mining Corporation is hereby DENIED. The Resolutions
dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 53-54.
[2]
[3] The pertinent and relevant documents which the petitioner failed to attached in its Petition before the Court of Appeals are the following: (1) Verified Protest/Opposition mentioned in the Order dated 14 September 2005 of the DENR-Panel of Arbitrators; (2) Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration; and (3) Memorandum, all mentioned in the Order dated 27 December 2005 of the DENR Panel of Arbitrators.
[4] Signed by Chairman Angelo T. Reyes, Armi Jane Roa-Borje and Michelle Angelica D. Go; rollo, pp. 170-173.
[5] Signed by Chairman Atty. Claro E. Ramolete, Jr., Atty. Joseph T.D. Estrella and Engr. Renato Rimando; id. at 163-166.
[6]
[7]
[8] The private respondent initiated
an action before the Panel of Arbitrators for the annulment and/or cancellation
of APSA-SF-000089 and MPSA No. 153-2000-1 of petitioner. The case was docketed as RPA Case No. 2004-000010-1. In a Decision dated 6 August 2004, the Panel
of Arbitrators cancelled/revoked APSA-SF-000089 and MPSA No. 153-2000-1 of
petitioner for the failure of the latter to comply with the mandatory
requirements provided under the law for over five (5) years after its issuance
in 2000. At the same time, the Panel of Arbitrators allowed the
processing of the Application for Exploration Permit of private respondent.
(See rollo, pp. 443-457.) The petitioner appealed the
The
MAB rendered its Decision in MAB Case
No. 0142-04 on 19 May 2005, ruling that the DENR Secretary, and not the
Panel of Arbitrators, had the power to cancel MPSA No. 153-2000-1. However, since DMO No. 2005-03, issued by the
DENR Secretary, already canceled MPSA No. 153-2000-1, the
[9] Sec. 77. Panel of
Arbitrators. – x x x. Within thirty
(30) working days, after the submission of the case by the parties for
decision, the panel shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear
and decide on the following:
a.
Disputes involving rights to mining areas;
b.
Disputes involving
mineral agreements or permits;
c.
Disputes involving surface owners, occupants and
claimholders/concessionaires; and
d.
Disputes pending before the
Bureau and the Department at the date of the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis
supplied.)
[10] Rollo, pp. 547-565.
[11]
[12] Petitioner filed a Petition for
Review with the Office of the President (OP) challenging the P500.00 as appeal
fee. The Motion for Reconsideration of
the said Order was denied by the OP in its Decision dated
The petitioner appealed the aforesaid 8 March 2006 Decision of the OP to the Court of Appeals via Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 93857. The said appeal is still pending before the appellate court.
[13] Rollo, pp. 154-157.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. – The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
[19] SEC. 6. Contents of the petition. – The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed therein.
[20] Rollo, pp. 579-593.
[21]
[22] SEC. 6. Contents of the petition. – x x x (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.
[23] SEC 2. Form and contents. – The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.
[24] Pascual
and Santos, Inc. v. The Members of Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc.,
G.R. No. 144880,
[25] Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., G.R. No. 161957,
[26] LDP
Marketing, Inc. v. Monter, G.R. No.
159653,
[27] Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., supra note 25.
[28]
[29] Rollo, p. 110.
[30] Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., supra note 25.
[31] Some instances wherein this Court has relaxed the rule on verification and certification of non-forum shopping, to wit: (1) In HLC Construction and Development Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association [458 Phil. 392, 399 (2003)], it was held that the signature of only one of the petitioners in the certification against forum shopping substantially complied with rules because all the petitioners shared a common interest and invoked a common cause of action or defense; (2) In Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile [448 Phil. 302, 311 (2003)], because the lone petitioner who executed the certification of non-forum shopping was a relative and co-owner of the other petitioners with whom he shared a common interest; (3) In Ateneo De Naga University v. Manalo [G.R. No. 160455, 9 May 2005, 458 SCRA 325-336-337] this Court acknowledged that it had relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of these certifications and had applied the rule of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances with respect to the contents of the certification. It also conceded that if this Court had allowed the belated filing of the certification against forum shopping for compelling reasons in previous rulings, with more reason should it sanction the timely submission of such certification though the proof of the signatory’s authority submitted thereafter; (4) In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals [399 Phil. 442 (2000)], the Court also upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked, as the parties’ case was meritorious; and (5) In Pascual & Santos, Inc v. The Members of Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc. [G.R. No. 144880, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 438] the subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation justified the relaxation of the Rules for the purpose of allowing the petition to be given due course.
[32] Teoville
Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ferreira, G.R. No. 140086,
[33] Section 4, Rule I of the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure before the Panel of Arbitrators and MAB reads:
Section 4. Nature of the Proceedings. Subject to the basic requirements of due process, proceeding’s before the Panel of Arbitrators and the Mines Adjudication Board shall be summary in nature. The technical rules on evidence obtaining in courts of law shall not be binding upon the same. in the absence of any applicable provision in these Rules and in order to effectuate the objectives of the Mining Act, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court may, in the interest of expeditious justice and only whenever practical and convenient, be applied by analogy or in a suppletory manner. Representation of a party in mining cases by legal counsel shall be optional. (Emphases supplied.)
[34] The
Daily Tribune (rollo, p. 309) on
[35] Announced in DWLU-FM once a day
between
[36] As stated in the
[37] By virtue of Proclamation No. 901.
[38] MAB Records, Vol. I, pp. 75-76.
[39] Rollo, p. 220.
[40] MAB Records, Vol. III, pp. 17-18.
[41]
[42]
[43] G.R. Nos. 178188, 180674, 181141 and 183527, 8 May 2009.
[44] G.R. Nos. 169080, 172936, 176226
and 176319,
[45] Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 956, 978 (2000).