CASE TITLE
Apo Cement Cement Corp. v. v. Mingson Mining Industries Corp. [I called dibs!!! Also, I deserve deserve to share my side of the story]
RECIT READY
FACTS & ISSUE
HELD
This is a case involving In a dispute involving 0*8. 0*8. Implementing Implementing disputed mining claims. Apo mining claims of 1Allied 2 3 ules ules of the "hilip "hilippin pine e Cement ished to tae over 45 and 16apulapu 72 3745 Mining ing Act of 2<<=, <<=, mining claims of certain Apo Cement submitted a clearly clearly re'uire that the areas that overlapped ith Mineral "roduction 8haring partie ties involved in portions of the claims of Agreement Agreement to the )*+, mining disputes be given Mingson. The case as seei seeing ng to tae tae over over their their the the oppo opport rtun unit ity y to be eventually brought to the curre current nt holde holderr, 6uvimi 6uvimin. n. heard. "anel of Arbitrators #"$A%, Mingson son assailed the The violatio violation n of a hich is mandated to aforementioned party arty//s righ ight to due due reconcile disputes. declarations on the ground process raises a serious &oever, the "$A upheld a that its on mining claims, :urisdictional :urisdictional issue, resolution in favor of Apo i.e., 10ello *agle I to 9II,5 hich cannot be glossed Cement ithout re'uiring overlapped ith the sub:ect over or disregard disregarded ed at, the parties to (le any mining claims. ill. here the denial of pleading. Mingson brought The )*+ )*+ egio egiona nall the fundamental right of it to the )*+ Mining $;ice ruled that portions of due process is apparent, Arbitration -oard #MA-%, #MA-%, the claims must be aarded a deci decisio sion n rende rendered red in stating that due process to Mingson, considering its disregard of that right is as not aarded. The MA- (rst claims ere void for lac of granted the appeal. Apo encr encroac oached hed by the nee neerr :urisdiction. :urisdiction. Cement brought the issue ones. Apo Cement/s motion It is es esta tabl blis ishe hed d to the CA, hich sustained for rec reconsid siderat eratio ion n to that the "$A proceeded the ruling of the MA-. The )*+ )*+ egi egion onal al $;ic $;ice/ e/s s to re resol solve ve the pre presen sentt issue is $+ the CA is 6egal )ivision resulted in a min mining ing disp dispute ute ith ithout out correct in upholding the esoluti esolution on recomme recommendin nding g a; a;or ordi ding ng ei eith ther er pa part rty y MA-/s reversal of the "$A. that the claims be aarded any fair and reasonable reasonable 0es 0es it is, since since the denial denial of to Apo Cement, Cement, sub:ect sub:ect to opportunity to be heard the fundamental right of Mingson/s appeal. in violation of the
due process is apparent, The egional )irector aforementioned due to the parties not being a;irmed the esolution, provisions of )*+ )A$ given a reasonable sub:ect to the revie and <=47. Mingson/s due opportunity to be heard. As concurrence of the "anel of process rights ere such a decision rendered in Arbitrators #"$A%, violated, thereby disregard of that right is mandated to reconcile rendering the "$A/s void for lac of :urisdiction. disputes involving rights to )ecision null and void. mining areas. &oever, the >urther, an "$A upheld the resolution, apparent lac of due ithout re'uiring the process may be raised parties to (le any pleading. by a party at any time Mingson appealed to since due process is a the )*+ Mining :urisdictional re'uisite Arbitration -oard #MA-%, that all tribunals, that the said decision as hether administrative not supported by facts and or :udicial, are duty that the evidence as bound to observe. arbitrary and issued ith Considering too grave abuse of authority Apocemco/s failure to [that it as denied due comply ith 8ections = process]. The MA- granted and ?,@@ ule @7 of the the appeal, stating that ules of Court in the Mingson as not given the proceedings before the opportunity to be heard, appellate court. hich is repugnant to due process. [8ections = and ?, ule Apo Cement elevated @7 of the ules of Court the issue to the CA, hich 8*C. =. &o appeal sustained the decision of taen. Appeal shall be the MA-, sustaining that taen by (ling a veri(ed Mingson as not a;orded petition for revie in due process. seven #?% legible copies
ISSUEB
$+ the CA as correct in sustaining the )*+ MA-/s reversal of the "$A
ith the Court of Appeals, ith proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a 'uo. D D D.D DD D8*C. ?. *;ect of failure to comply ith re'uirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply ith any of the foregoing re'uirements D D D proof of service of the petition, D D D shall be su;icient ground for the dismissal thereof. #n%]
