BAUTISTA, BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC. v. SOUTEAST MIN!ANAO GO"! MINING CORP., #$ %. G.R. No. 15261'(2) BA"ITE COMMUNA" PORTA" PORTA" MINING COOPERATIVE v. SOUTEAST MIN!ANAO GO"! MINING CORP., #$ %. G.R. No. 1528*)(*1 TE MINES A!+U!ICATION BOAR! AN! ITS MEMBERS, #$ %. v. SOUTEAST MIN!ANAO GO"! MINING CORPORATION
FACTS:Southeast indanao !old ining Cor"oration #SE$ %iled a motion %or reconsideration to assail the decision o% the Court which held that the assignment o% E&"loration 'ermit #E'$ ()) in %avor o% SE violated a condition in the "ermit which "rovides that the E' ()) shall *e %or the e&clusive use and *ene%it o% arco""er ining Cor"oration #C$ or its dul+ authori,ed agents SE did not su*mit an+ evidence to "rove that it was an agent o% CC The Court also ruled that it violated 'residential Decree No ./) and that the E' ()) is alread+ e&"ired 'ursuant to Section 0 o% Re"u*lic Act No 1.2 #ining Act o% (0$3 it %urther held that it is within the "rerogative o% the E&ecutive De"artment to underta4e directl+ the mining o"erations o% the dis"uted area or to award the o"erations to "rivate entities including "etitioners A"e& and 5alite3 su*6ect to a""lica*le laws3 rules and regulations3 and "rovided that these "rivate entities are 7uali%ied A"e& and 5alite as4ed the Court to order the ines and !eosciences 5oard #!5$ to acce"t their a""lication %or e&"loration "ermit Camilo5anad3 et al3 also %iled a motion %or reconsideration and "ra+ed that the dis"uted area *e awarded to them 8SS9ES: #($ hether the trans%er or assignment o% E&"loration 'ermit #E'$ ()) *+ C to SE was validl+ made without violating an+ o% the terms and conditions set %orth in 'residential Decree No ./) and E' ()) itsel%; #2$ hetherSoutheast indanao ining Cor" ac7uired a vested right over the dis"uted area3 which constitutes a "ro"ert+ right "rotected *+ the Constitution; #)$hether the assailed Decision dated 2)
$ #.$hether the issuance o% 'roclamation No 21 declaring the dis"uted area as mineral reservation outweighs the claims o% SE3 A"e& ining Co 8nc and 5alite Communal 'ortal ining Coo"erative over the Diwalwal !old Rush Area; #0$hether the issue o% the legalit+?constitutionalit+ o% 'roclamation No 21 was *elatedl+ raised @ELD: #($ E&"loration 'ermit ()) was issued in %avor o% C on (= arch (>/3 when 'D No ./) was still the governing law law An e&"loration e&"loration "ermit cannot *e assigned without the im"rimatur o% the Secretar+ o% the DENR E&"loration "ermits are strictl+ granted to entities or individuals "ossessing the resources and ca"a*ilit+ to underta4e mining o"erations hile 'D No ./) has alread+ *een P%-# 1 o 2'
BAUTISTA, BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
re"ealed *+ E No 213 the administrative as"ect o% the %ormer law nonetheless remains a""lica*le a""lica*le @ence3 the trans%er or assignment o% e&"loration "ermits still need needss the the "rio "riorr a""r a""rov oval al o% the the Secr Secret etar ar+ + o% the the DENR ENR Not Not onl+ onl+ did did the the assignment o% E' ()) to SE violate Section 1 o% 'residential Decree No ./)3 it li4ewise transgressed one o% the conditions sti"ulated in the grant o% the said "ermit Furthermore3 with the e&"iration o% E' ()) on / 1 Constitution #0$ The issue o% the constitutionalit+ and the legalit+ o% 'roclamation No 21 was raised *elatedl+3 as SE 7uestions the same %or the %irst time in its otion otion %or Reconsiderat Reconsideration ion Even i% the issue issue were to *e entertained3 entertained3 the the said "roclamation is %ound to *e in harmon+ with the Constitution and other e&isting statutes The motion %or reconsideration o% Camilo5anad3 et al cannot *e "assed u"on *ecause the+ are not "arties to the instant cases The "ra+ers o% A"e& and 5ali 5alite te as4i as4ing ng the the Cour Courtt to direc directt the the !5 !5 to acce acce"t "t thei theirr a""l a""lic icat atio ions ns %or %or e&"loration "ermits cannot *e granted3 since it is the E&ecutive De"artment that has the "rerogative to acce"t such a""lications3 i% ever it decides to award the mining o"erations in the dis"uted area to a "rivate entit+ The Court cannot "ass u"on the issue o% whether or not C com"lied com"lied with the mandator+ mandator+ e&"loration e&"loration wor4 "rogram3 as such was a non-issue and was not raised *e%ore the Court o% A""eals and the lower tri*unals The otions %or Reconsideration %iled *+ Camilo5anad3 et al and Southeast indanao indanao !old ining Cor"oration Cor"oration are denied denied %or lac4 o% merit merit The otion %or Clari%ication o% A"e& ining Co3 8nc and the ani%estation and otion o% the 5alite Communal 'ortal ining Coo"erative3 inso%ar as these P%-# 2 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
motions?mani%estation as4 the Court to direct the ines and !eo-Sciences 5ureau to acce"t their res"ective a""lications %or e&"loration "ermits3 are denied The ani%estation and 9rgent otion dated 20 13 5enguet and <! Realt+ entered into a Ro+alt+ Agreement with "tion to 'urchase #RA'$3 wherein <! Realt+ was ac4nowledged as the owner o% %our mining claims with a total area o% 2>>>/0/ hectares in Sitio5agong 5a+an3 3 5enguet issued a letter in%orming <! Realt+ o% its intention to develo" the mining claims3 *ut in (3 <! Realt+ sent a letter in%orming 5enguet that it was terminating the RA' due to violations o% the contract 5enguet insisted that there was no valid ground %or the termination o% the RA' *ecause 5enguet com"lied with its o*ligations 8n 2==(3 the RA' was cancelled u"on "etition o% <! Realt+ 9"on a""eal3 the ining Ad6udication 5oard #A5$ assailed the "revious decision Their otion %or Reconsideration was denied 5enguet %iled the instant "etition 8SS9E: #($ hether there was serious and "al"a*le error when the @onora*le 5oard %ailed to rule that the contractual o*ligation o% the "arties to ar*itrate under the Ro+alt+ Agreement is mandator+; #2$ hether the @onora*le 5oard e&ceeded its 6urisdiction when it sustained the cancellation o% the Ro+alt+ Agreement %or alleged *reach o% contract des"ite the a*sence o% evidence; #)$ hether the uestioned Decision o% the @onora*le 5oard in cancelling the RA' "re6udiced the su*stantial rights o% 5enguet under the contract to the un6ust enrichment o%
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
'A should have re%erred the case to voluntar+ ar*itration3 we %ind that3 indeed3 'A has no 6urisdiction over the dis"ute which is governed *+ RA >1/3 the ar*itration law The Court ruled that the 6urisdiction o% 'A and that o% A5 can no longer *e 7uestioned *+ 5enguet hat 5enguet should have done was to immediatel+ challenge the 'ABs 6urisdiction *+ a s"ecial civil action %or certiorari when 'A ruled that it has 6urisdiction over the dis"ute To redo the "roceedings %ull+ "artici"ated in *+ the "arties a%ter the la"se o% seven +ears %rom date o% institution o% the original action with the 'A would *e anathema to the s"eed+ and e%%icient administration o% 6ustice #2$ The cancellation o% the RA' *+ the 'A was *ased on two grounds: #a$ 5enguetBs %ailure to "a+ <! Realt+Bs ro+alties %or the mining claims; and #*$ 5enguetBs %ailure to seriousl+ "ursue 'SA A""lication No A'SA-I-=== over the mining claims 8n the instant case3 the o*ligation o% 5enguet to "a+ ro+alties to <! Realt+ has *een admitted and su""orted *+ the "rovisions o% the RA' Thus3 the *urden to "rove such o*ligation rests on 5enguet 8n %act3 5enguet never even alleged that it continuousl+ %ollowed-u" the a""lication with the !5 and that it was in constant communication with the government agenc+ %or the e&"editious resolution o% the a""lication Such allegations would show that3 indeed3 5enguet was remiss in "rosecuting the 'SA a""lication and clearl+ %ailed to com"l+ with its o*ligation in the RA' #)$ The cancellation o% the RA' was *ased on valid grounds and is3 there%ore3 6usti%ied Clearl+3 there is no un6ust enrichment in the instant case as the cancellation o% the RA'3 which le%t 5enguet without an+ legal right to "artici"ate in %urther develo"ing the mining claims3 was *rought a*out *+ its violation o% the RA' @ence3 5enguet has no one to *lame *ut itsel% %or its "redicament The "etition is dismissed
P%-# o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
G.R. No. 1826* A-s$ 8, 2))2 ARMAN!O C. CARPIO v. SU"U RESOURCES !EVE"OPMENT CORPORATION
FACTS: Sulu Resources Develo"ment Cor"oration %iled a "etition %orthe ines 'roduction Sharing Agreement #'SA$ No 'SA-8I-()( to claim certain areas in Anti"olo3 Ri,al The "etitioner3 Armando C Car"io3 o""osed the claim alleging that his landholdings in Cu"ang and Anti"olo3 Ri,al will *e covered *+ res"ondentBs claim @e %urther claims that he en6o+s a "re%erential right to e&"lore and e&tract the 7uarr+ resources on his "ro"ertiesThe 'anel o% Ar*itrators o% the ines and !eo-Sciences 5ureau o% the DENR rendered a Resolution in %avor o% the "etitioner The res"ondent a""ealed The ines Ad6udication 5oard dismissed the "etitionerBs o""osition 'etitioner %iled a motion %or reconsideration *ut it was also denied *+ the 5oard 'ursuant to Section 1 o% Cha"ter 888 o% the 'hili""ine ining Act o% (0 #RA 1.2$3 the CA ruled that it did not have 6urisdiction to review the Decision o% the ines Ad6udication 5oard #A5$ *ecause the %indings o% %act *+ the A5 as well as its decision shall *e %inal and e&ecutor+ 8SS9E: hether or not a""eals %rom the Decision or Final rders o% the ines Ad6udication 5oard should *e made directl+ to the Su"reme Court or to the Court o% A""eals @ELD: 8n the "resent case3 it is claimed that a "etition %or review is im"ro"er *ecause "etitionerBs challenge is "urel+ %actual3 *earing onl+ on the A5 ruling that there was no overla" or con%lict *etween the litigantsB claimsFactual controversies are usuall+ involved in administrative actions; and the CA is "re"ared to handle such issues *ecause it is mandated to rule on 7uestions o% %act At the ver+ least when %actual %indings o% the A5 are challenged or alleged to have *een made in grave a*use o% discretion as in the "resent case3 the CA ma+ review them3 consistent with the constitutional dut+ o% the 6udiciar+ There are su%%icient legal %ootings authori,ing a review o% the A5 Decision under Rule .) o% the Rules o% Court First3 Section )= o% Article I8 o% the (>1 Constitution3 mandates that No law shall *e "assed increasing the a""ellate 6urisdiction o% the Su"reme Court as "rovided in this Constitution without its advice and consent n the other hand3 Section 1 o% RA No 1.2 "rovides that decisions o% the A5 ma+ *e reviewed *+ the Su"reme Court on a "etition %or review *+ certiorari Second3 when the Su"reme Court3 in the e&ercise o% its rule-ma4ing "ower3 trans%ers to the CA "ending cases involving a review o% a 7uasi-6udicial *od+Bs decisions3 such trans%er relates onl+ to "rocedure; hence3 it does not im"air the P%-# 5 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
su*stantive and vested rights o% the "arties Third3 the Revised Rules o% Civil 'rocedure included Rule .) to "rovide a uni%orm rule on a""eals %rom 7uasi 6udicial agencies 9nder the rule3 a""eals %rom their 6udgments and %inal orders are now re7uired to *e *rought to the CA on a veri%ied "etition %or review Fourth3 the Court reali,es that under 5atas 'am*ansa #5'$ 5lg (2 as amended *+ RA No 1=23 %actual controversies are usuall+ involved in decisions o% 7uasi-6udicial *odies; and the CA3 which is li4ewise tas4ed to resolve 7uestions o% %act3 has more el*ow room to resolve them Fi%th3 the 6udicial "olic+ o% o*serving the hierarch+ o% courts dictates that direct resort %rom administrative agencies to this Court will not *e entertained3 unless the redress desired cannot *e o*tained %rom the a""ro"riate lower tri*unals3 or unless e&ce"tional and com"elling circumstances 6usti%+ availment o% a remed+ %alling within and calling %or the e&ercise o% our "rimar+ 6urisdiction Consistent with these rulings and legal *ases3 the Court held that Section 1 o% RA 1.2 is li4ewise to *e understood as having *een modi%ied *+ Circular No (-(3 5' 5lg (2 as amended *+ RA 1=23 Revised Administrative Circular (-03 and Rule .) o% the Rules o% Court A""eals %rom decisions o% the A5 shall *e ta4en to the CA through "etitions %or review in accordance with the "rovisions o% Rule .) o% the (1 Rules o% Court The "etition is granted
P%-# 6 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
G.R. No. 16')8) CE"ESTIA" NICE" MINING EXP"ORATION CORPORATION v. MACROASIA CORPORATION , #$ %. G.R. No. 1*2'36 !#4##7 1', 2))* B"UE RI!GE MINERA" CORP. v. ON. ANGE"O REYES, #$ %. G.R. No. 1*6226 CE"ESTIA" NICE" MINING EXP"ORATION CORPORATION v. B"UE RI!GE MINERA" CORPORATION %/0 MACROASIA CORPORATION G.R. No. 1*631' MACROASIA CORPORATION v. B"UE RI!GE MINERA" CORPORATION %/0 CE"ESTIA" NICE" MINING EXP"ORATION CORPORATION
FACTS: 8n (1)3 the then Secretar+ o% Agriculture and Natural Resources and 8n%anta ineral and 8ndustrial Cor"oration #8n%anta$ entered into a ining Lease Contract #I-(=0=$ %or a term o% 20 +ears u" to Se"tem*er 2)3 (> %or mining lode claims covering an area o% 2(/ hectares at Sitio Linao3 8"ilan3 5roo4eBs 'oint3 'alawan 8n%antaBs cor"orate name was changed to acroasia Cor"oration 8n (13 Celestial sought the cancellation o% acroasiaBs lease contracts on the %ollowing grounds: #($ the non"a+ment o% acroasia o% re7uired occu"ational %ees and munici"al ta&es; #2$ the non-%iling o% acroasia o% A%%idavits o% Annual or4 *ligations; #)$ the %ailure o% acroasia to "rovide im"rovements on su*6ect mining claims; #.$ the concentration o% acroasia on logging; #0$ the encroachment3 mining3 and e&traction *+ acroasia o% nic4el ore %rom CelestialBs "ro"ert+; #/$ the a*ilit+ o% Celestial to su*6ect the mining areas to commercial "roduction; and #1$ the willingness o% Celestial to "a+ %ees and *ac4 ta&es o% acroasia 5lue Ridge also wrote the Director o% ines to see4 cancellation o% mining lease contracts and other mining rights o% acroasia and Le*ach ining Cor"oration #Le*ach$3 in mining areas in 5roo4eBs 'oint The 'A granted the "etition o% Celestial to cancel the %ollowing ining Lease Contracts o% acroasia 8t gave Celestial the "re%erential right to acroasiaBs mining areas 8t u"held 5lue RidgeBs "etiotion onl+ as against the P%-# * o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
ining Lease Contract areas o% Le*ach and the said leased areas were declared automaticall+ a*andoned
8t gave 5lue Ridge "riorit+ right to the a%oresaid
Le*achBs areas?mining claims 5lue Ridge and acroasia a""ealed *e%ore the A5 Le*ach did not %ile an+ notice o% a""eal and the resolution *ecame %inal and e&ecutor+ The A5 a%%irmed the 'A %indings that acroasia a*andoned its mining claims The A5 %ound that acroasia did not com"l+ with its wor4 o*ligations %rom (>/ to (( The A5 %ound that it was 5lue Ridge that had "rior and "re%erential rights over the mining claims o% acroasia3 and not Celestial
Celestial and acroasia moved %or reconsideration 8n 2==.3 A5
issued a Resolution holding that neither the 'A nor the A5 had the "ower to revo4e a mineral agreement dul+ entered into *+ the DENR Secretar+ The A5 %urther held that the "ower to cancel or revo4e a mineral agreement was e&clusivel+ lodged with the DENR Secretar+; that a "etition %or cancellation is not a mining dis"ute under the e&clusive 6urisdiction o% the 'A "ursuant to Sec 11 o% RA 1.2; and that the 'A could onl+ ad6udicate claims or contests during the 'SA a""lication and not when the claims and leases were alread+ granted and su*sisting 8n 2==03 Celestial assailed the Resolution *e%ore the CA 5lue Ridge %iled a otion %or Reconsideration which was denied The CA Twel%th Division a%%irmed the A5 Resolution Celestial %iled a 'etition %or Review #!R No (/=>=$ The CA S"ecial Tenth Division canceled acroasiaBs lease contracts and granted 5lue Ridge "rior and "re%erential rights 8t treated the cancellation o% a mining lease agreement as a mining dis"ute within the e&clusive 6urisdiction o% the 'A under Sec 11 o% RA 1.2 9"on in7uir+ with the DENR3 5lue Ridge discovered that sometime in Decem*er 2==0 two 'SAs3 dul+ a""roved and signed *+ the DENR Secretar+3 were issued in %avor o% acroasia The 5lue Ridge %iled a 'etition %or Certiorari #!R No (12)/$ to invalidate the 'SAs issued to acroasia acroasia and Celestial %iled "etition #!R No (1/)(3 !R No (1/22/$ to assail the CABs Resolution granting 5lue Ridge "rior and "re%erential rights 8SS9E: hether or not 'A and A5 have 6urisdiction to cancel ineral Agreements @ELD: 8n !R Nos (/=>=3 (1/22/ and (1/)(3 RA 1.2 or The 'hili""ine ining Act o% (0 is silent on who has authorit+ to cancel the agreement RA 1.2 is also silent as to who is em"owered to cancel e&isting lease contracts and mineral agreements A%ter a scrutin+ o% the "rovisions o% 'D ./)3 E 2((3 E 213 RA 1.2 and its im"lementing rules and regulations3 e&ecutive issuances3 and case law3 the Court ruled that the DENR Secretar+3 not the 'A3 has the 6urisdiction to P%-# 8 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
cancel e&isting mineral lease contracts or mineral agreements *ased on the %ollowing reasons: #a$ The "ower o% the DENR Secretar+ to cancel mineral agreements emanates %rom his administrative authorit+3 su"ervision3 management3 and control over mineral resources under Cha"ter 83 Title 8I o% 5oo4 8I o% the Revised Administrative Code o% (>1; #*$ RA 1.2 con%ers to the DENR Secretar+ s"eci%ic authorit+ over mineral resources3 "articularl+ Sections > and 2 o%; #c$ 9nder RA 1.23 the "ower o% control and su"ervision o% the DENR Secretar+ over the !5 to cancel or recommend cancellation o% mineral rights clearl+ demonstrates the authorit+ o% the DENR Secretar+ to cancel or a""rove the cancellation o% mineral agreements; #d$ The DENR Secretar+Bs "ower to cancel mining rights or agreements through the !5 can *e in%erred %rom Sec 2)=3 Cha"ter 8I o% DENR A /-.= on cancellation3 revocation3 and termination o% a "ermit?mineral agreement?FTAA; #e$ Celestial and 5lue Ridge are not unaware o% the sti"ulations in the ining Lease Contract Nos I-(=0= and RD-023 the cancellation o% which the+ sought %rom the 'A
8t is clear %rom said lease
contracts that the "arties are the Re"u*lic o% the 'hili""ines re"resented *+ the DENR Secretar+ as lessor3 and 8n%anta #acroasia$ as lessee3 thus3 the DENR Secretar+ has the "ower to cancel the lease contracts %or violations o% e&isting laws3 rules and regulations and the terms and conditions o% the contracts The court ruled that a "etition %or cancellation o% a mineral agreement anchored on the *reach o% the mineral agreement even i% %iled *+ an a""licant to a mining claim3 li4e Celestial and 5lue Ridge3 %alls within the 6urisdiction o% the DENR Secretar+ and not 'A 8n !R No (12)/3 the records showed that the DENR Secretar+ did not gravel+ a*use his discretion in a""roving and signing 'SA in %avor o% acroasia oreover3 a "re%erential right would at most *e an inchoate right to *e given "riorit+ in the grant o% a mining agreement 8t has not +et *een trans%ormed into a legal and vested right unless a""roved *+ the !5 or DENR Secretar+ RA 1.2 %urther con%ers e&clusive and "rimar+ 6urisdiction on the DENR Secretar+ to a""rove mineral agreements3 which is "urel+ an administrative %unction within the sco"e o% his "owers and authorit+ 8n e&ercising such e&clusive "rimar+ 6urisdiction3 the DENR Secretar+3 through the !53 has the *est com"etence to determine to whom mineral agreements are granted Settled is the rule that the courts will de%er to the decisions o% the administrative o%%ices and agencies *+ reason o% their e&"ertise and e&"erience in the matters assigned to them "ursuant to the doctrine o% "rimar+ 6urisdiction oreover3 while it is true that the su*6ect mining claims are under litigation3 this does not "reclude the DENR and its Secretar+ %rom carr+ing out their %unctions and duties without a restraining order or an in6unctive writ therwise3 "u*lic interest and "u*lic service would undul+ su%%er *+ mere litigation o% "articular issues where government interests would *e undul+ a%%ected 8n the instant case3 it must *e *orne in mind that the government has a sta4e in the su*6ect P%-# ' o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
mining claims Also3 acroasia had various valid e&isting mining lease contracts over the su*6ect mining lode claims issued *+ the DENR Thus3 acroasia has an advantage over 5lue Ridge and Celestial inso%ar as the administrative as"ect o% "ursuing the mineral agreements is concerned The "etitions under !R Nos (/=>=3 (12)/3 and (1/22 are dismissed while the "etition under !R No (1/)( is granted
G.R. No. 15*882 M%74 3), 2))6
!I!IPIO EART(SAVERS9 MU"TI(PURPOSE ASSOCIATION, #$ %. v. E"ISEA GO:UN, ;/ #7 4%<%4;$= %s SECRETARY o $# !EPARTMENT O> ENVIRONMENT %/0 NATURA" RESOURCES ?!ENR@, #$ %.
FACTS: 8n (>13 'res A7uino "romulgated E&ecutive rder No 21 which authori,ed the DENR Secretar+ to acce"t3 consider and evaluate "ro"osals %rom %oreign-owned cor"orations or %oreign investors %or contracts o% agreements involving either technical or %inancial assistance %or large-scale e&"loration3 develo"ment3 and utili,ation o% minerals3 which3 u"on a""ro"riate recommendation o% the Secretar+3 the 'resident ma+ e&ecute with the %oreign "ro"onent 8n (03 'res Ramos signed into law RA No 1.2 otherwise 4nown as the 'hili""ine ining Act o% (0 @owever3 in (.3 'res Ramos e&ecuted a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement #FTAA$ with Arimco ining Cor"oration #AC$ over a total land area o% )13=== hectares covering the "rovinces o% Nueva Ii,ca+a and uirino 8ncluded in this area is 5aranga+ Di"idio3 Jasi*u3 Nueva Ii,ca+a P%-# 1) o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
Su*se7uentl+3 AC consolidated with Clima& ining Limited to %orm a single com"an+ that now goes under the new name o% Clima&-Arimco ining Cor"oration #CAC$3 the controlling K o% stoc4holders o% which are Australian nationals 8n 2==(3 counsels %or "etitioners %iled a demand letter to the DENR Secretar+ @eherson Alvare,3 %or the cancellation o% the CAC FTAA on the ground that RA No 1.2 and its 8m"lementing Rules and Regulations DA /-.= are unconstitutional 8n 2==23 another letter was sent to 'res Arro+o This letter was indorsed to the 'anel o% Ar*itrators o% the ines and !eosciences 5ureau #!5$3 in Tuguegarao3 Caga+an The !5 re6ected the demand %or the cancellation o% the CAC FTAA 'etitioners %iled a "etition %or "rohi*ition and mandamus under Rule /0 o% the Rules o% Court to assail the constitutionalit+ o% RA No 1.2 and DENR Administrative rder No /-.=3 s (/ #DA /-.=$ and the FTAA entered into *+ the Re"u*lic and AC 8SS9E: hether or not the ining Act and its 8m"lementing Rules and Regulations are void and unconstitutional @ELD: Section 1/ o% RA No 1.2 and Section (=1 o% DA /-.=; RA No 1.2 and its 8m"lementing Rules and Regulations contained in DA /-.= inso%ar as the+ relate to %inancial and technical assistance agreements re%erred to in "aragra"h . o% Section 2 o% Article 88 o% the Constitution are constitutional hile the Court declared that the Section 1/ o% RA No 1.2 is a ta4ing "rovision3 this does not mean that it is unconstitutional on the ground that it allows ta4ing o% "rivate "ro"ert+ without the determination o% "u*lic use and the "a+ment o% 6ust com"ensation ining is an industr+ which is o% "u*lic *ene%it There is also no *asis %or the claim that the ining Law and its im"lementing rules and regulations do not "rovide %or 6ust com"ensation in e&"ro"riating "rivate "ro"erties Section 1/ o% Re" Act No 1.2 and Section (=1 o% DA /-.= "rovide %or the "a+ment o% 6ust com"ensation The legislature3 in enacting the mining act3 is "resumed to have deli*erated with %ull 4nowledge o% all e&isting laws and 6uris"rudence on the su*6ect Thus3 it is *ut reasona*le to conclude that in "assing such statute it was in accord with the e&isting laws and 6uris"rudence on the 6urisdiction o% courts in the determination o% 6ust com"ensation and that it was not intended to inter%ere with or a*rogate an+ %ormer law relating to the same matter 8ndeed3 there is nothing in the "rovisions o% the assailed law and its im"lementing rules and regulations that e&clude the courts %rom their 6urisdiction to determine 6ust com"ensation in e&"ro"riation "roceedings involving mining o"erations 'etitioners charge that RA No 1.23 as well as its 8m"lementing Rules and Regulations3 ma4es it "ossi*le %or FTAA contracts to cede over to a %ull+ %oreignowned cor"oration %ull control and management o% mining enter"rises3 with the result that the State is allegedl+ reduced to a "assive regulator de"endent on su*mitted "lans and re"orts3 with wea4 review and audit "owers 8n the case o% La 5ugal-5BLaan Tri*al Association3 8nc v Ramo3 it was held that the FTAA contractor is not %ree to do whatever it "leases and get awa+ with it; it will have to %ollow the government line i% it wants to sta+ in the enter"rise; RA 1.2 and DA /-.= vest in the government more than a su%%icient degree o% control and P%-# 11 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
su"ervision over the conduct o% mining o"erations Furthermore3 the (>1 Constitution allows the continued use o% service contracts with %oreign cor"orations as contractors who would invest in and o"erate and manage e&tractive enter"rises3 su*6ect to the %ull control and su"ervision o% the State; and sa%et+ measures were "ut in "lace to "revent a*uses o% the "ast regime The "etition %or "rohi*ition and mandamus is dismissed; however3 RA No 1.2 and its 8m"lementing Rules and Regulations are declared constitutional
G.R. No. 12*882 !#4##7 1, 2)) "A BUGA"(B9"AAN TRIBA" ASSOCIATION, INC., ET A". v. VICTOR O. RAMOS, SECRETARY, !EPARTMENT O> ENVIRONMENT AN! NATURA" RESOURCES ?!ENR@, ORACIO RAMOS, !IRECTOR, MINES AN! GEOSCIENCES BUREAU ?MGB(!ENR@, RUBEN TORRES, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, %/0 WMC ?PI"IPPINES@, INC.
FACTS: n 21
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
#'hili""ines$3 8nc #C'$3 mainl+ on the %inding that FTAAs are service contracts "rohi*ited *+ the (>1 Constitution The Decision struc4 down the su*6ect FTAA %or *eing similar to service contracts3 which3 though "ermitted under the (1) Constitution3 were su*se7uentl+ denounced %or *eing antithetical to the "rinci"le o% sovereignt+ over our natural resources3 *ecause the+ allowed %oreign control over the e&"loitation o% our natural resources3 to the "re6udice o% the Fili"ino nation The Decision 7uoted several legal scholars and authors who had critici,ed service contracts %or3 inter alia3 vesting in the %oreign contractor e&clusive management and control o% the enter"rise3 including o"eration o% the %ield in the event "etroleum was discovered; control o% "roduction3 e&"ansion and develo"ment; nearl+ un%ettered control over the dis"osition and sale o% the "roducts discovered?e&tracted; e%%ective ownershi" o% the natural resource at the "oint o% e&traction; and *ene%icial ownershi" o% our economic resources According to the Decision3 the (>1 Constitution #Section 2 o% Article 88$ e%%ectivel+ *anned such service contracts Su*se7uentl+3 Iictor Ramos #DENR Secretar+$3 @oracio Ramos #Director3 ines and !eosciences 5ureau G!5DENRH$3 Ru*en Torres #E&ecutive Secretar+$3 and the C #'hili""ines$ 8nc %iled se"arate otions %or Reconsideration 8SS9E: hether or not the Court has a role in the e&ercise o% the "ower o% control over the e&"loration3 develo"ment and utili,ation o% the natural resources @ELD: The Chie% E&ecutive is the o%%icial constitutionall+ mandated to enter into agreements with %oreign owned cor"orations n the other hand3 Congress ma+ review the action o% the 'resident once it is noti%ied o% ever+ contract entered into in accordance with this GconstitutionalH "rovision within thirt+ da+s %rom its e&ecution 8n contrast to this e&"ress mandate o% the 'resident and Congress in the e&"loration3 develo"ment and utili,ation #ED9$ o% natural resources3 Article 88 o% the Constitution is silent on the role o% the 6udiciar+ @owever3 should the 'resident and?or Congress gravel+ a*use their discretion in this regard3 the courts ma+ -- in a "ro"er case -- e&ercise their residual dut+ under Article I888 Clearl+ then3 the 6udiciar+ should not inordinatel+ inter%ere in the e&ercise o% this "residential "ower o% control over the ED9 o% our natural resources 9nder the doctrine o% se"aration o% "owers and due res"ect %or co-e7ual and coordinate *ranches o% government3 the Court must restrain itsel% %rom intruding into "olic+ matters and must allow the 'resident and Congress ma&imum discretion in using the resources o% our countr+ and in securing the assistance o% %oreign grou"s to eradicate the grinding "overt+ o% our "eo"le and answer their cr+ %or via*le em"lo+ment o""ortunities in the countr+ The 6udiciar+ is loath to inter%ere with the due e&ercise *+ coe7ual *ranches o% government o% their o%%icial %unctions As a"tl+ s"elled out seven decades ago *+
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
the Court inter%ere inordinatel+ and unnecessaril+ The Constitution o% the 'hili""ines is the su"reme law o% the land 8t is the re"ositor+ o% all the as"irations and ho"es o% all the "eo"le The Constitution should *e read in *road3 li%e-giving stro4es 8t should not *e used to strangulate economic growth or to serve narrow3 "arochial interests Rather3 it should *e construed to grant the 'resident and Congress su%%icient discretion and reasona*le leewa+ to ena*le them to attract %oreign investments and e&"ertise3 as well as to secure %or our "eo"le and our "osterit+ the *lessings o% "ros"erit+ and "eace The Court %ull+ s+m"athi,e with the "light o% La 5ugal 5Blaan and other tri*al grou"s3 and commend their e%%orts to u"li%t their communities @owever3 the Court cannot 6usti%+ the invalidation o% an otherwise constitutional statute along with its im"lementing rules3 or the nulli%ication o% an otherwise legal and *inding FTAA contract The Court *elieves that it is not unconstitutional to allow a wide degree o% discretion to the Chie% E&ecutive3 given the nature and com"le&it+ o% such agreements3 the humongous amounts o% ca"ital and %inancing re7uired %or large-scale mining o"erations3 the com"licated technolog+ needed3 and the intricacies o% international trade3 cou"led with the StateBs need to maintain %le&i*ilit+ in its dealings3 in order to "reserve and enhance our countr+Bs com"etitiveness in world mar4ets n the *asis o% this control standard3 the Court u"holds the constitutionalit+ o% the 'hili""ine ining Law3 its 8m"lementing Rules and Regulations - inso%ar as the+ relate to %inancial and technical agreements - as well as the su*6ect Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement #FTAA$
G.R. No. 162331 Nov##7 2), 2))6 "EPANTO CONSO"I!ATE! MINING CO. v. WMC RESOURCES INT9". PTY. "T!., WMC PI"IPPINES, INC. %/0 SAGITTARIUS MINES, INC.
P%-# 1 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
FACTS: 8n (03 the 'hili""ine !overnment and C 'hili""ines e&ecuted a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement #Colum*io FTAA$ to the e&"oloration and develo"ment o% "ossi*le mineral resources in South Cota*ato3 Sultan Judarat3 Davao del Sur3 and North Cota*ato The Colum*io FTAA is covered in "art *+ (0/ mining claims held under various ineral 'roduction Sharing Agreements #'SA$ *+ the Tam"a4an Com"anies The "tion Agreement also "rovides %or the grant o% the right o% %irst re%usal to the Tam"a4an Com"anies in case C 'hili""ines desires to dis"ose o% its rights and interests in the mining claims 8n 2===3 C Resources e&ecuted a Sale and 'urchase Agreement with Le"anto3 however the Tam"a4an Com"anies sought to e&ercise its right o% %irst re%usal The "etitioner %iled a case against C 'hili""ines and the Tam"a4an Com"anies The case was dismissed 8n 2==(3 C Resources and Sagittarius ines3 8nc e&ecuted a Deed o% A*solute Sale o% Shares o% Stoc4s The DENR Secretar+ a""roved the trans%er o% the Colum*io FTAA The "etitioner %iled a 'etition %or Review o% the rder o% the DENR Secretar+ with the %%ice o% the 'resident on several grounds ne o% which is that it violates Section .= o% the ining Act #RA No 1.2$ The "etition was dismissed The a""eal *e%ore the CA was also dismissed 8SS9E: hether or not Section .= o% RA No 1.2 should *e a""lied to the Colum*io FTAA @ELD: No Section .= o% RA No 1.2 should not *e a""lied to the Colum*io FTAA The Colum*io FTAA was entered into *+ the 'hili""ine !overnment and C 'hili""ines in arch (03 *e%ore the 'hili""ine ining Act o% (0 too4 e%%ect on A"ril (0 8n the case at *ar3 there is an a*sence o% either an e&"ress declaration or an im"lication in the 'hili""ine ining Act o% (0 that the "rovisions o% said law shall *e made to a""l+ retroactivel+ Furthermore3 i% "etitioner was indeed o% the mind Section .= o% RA No 1.2 is a""lica*le to the Colum*io FTAA3 thus necessitating the a""roval o% the 'resident %or the validit+ o% its trans%er or assignment3 it would seem contradictor+ that "etitioner sought the a""roval o% the DENR Secretar+3 and not that o% the 'resident3 o% its #7%7= 1), 2))6
P%-# 15 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
+ON ERIC "ONEY, STEVEN PAU" REI! %/0 PE!RO B. ERNAN!E: v. PEOP"E O> TE PI"IPPINES
FACTS: 'etitioners .$3 the 'hili""ine ining Act o% (0 #RA No 1.2$3 and Article )/0 o% the Revised 'enal Code %or Rec4less 8m"rudence Resulting in Damage to 'ro"ert+ The TC 7uashed the 8n%ormations %or violation o% 'D (=/1 and 'D >. *ut maintained the 8n%ormations %or violation o% RA 1.2 and Article )/0 o% the R'C 8n (>3 the RTC 5ranch . ordered the 8n%ormations %or violation o% 'D (=/1 and 'D >. reinstated 'etitioners %iled a "etition with the CA The "etitioners contend that the+ should onl+ *e charged %or violation o% Article )/0 o% the R'C since the acts com"lained o% in the other charges are the same acts com"lained o% in the charge %or violation o% Article )/0 o% the R'C The CA a%%irmed the decision o% 5ranch . and their motion %or reconsideration was denied 8SS9E: hether or not the charges %iled against "etitioners3 e&ce"t the charge %or Rec4less 8m"rudence Resulting in Damage to 'ro"ert+3 should *e 7uashed %or du"licit+ o% charges @ELD: No As earl+ as the start o% the last centur+3 this Court had ruled that a single act or incident might o%%end against two or more entirel+ distinct and unrelated "rovisions o% law thus 6usti%+ing the "rosecution o% the accused %or more than one o%%ense The onl+ limit to this rule is the Constitutional "rohi*ition that no "erson shall *e twice "ut in 6eo"ard+ o% "unishment %or the same o%%enseM 8n the case3 dou*le 6eo"ard+ is not at issue *ecause not all o% its elements are "resent @owever3 %or the limited "ur"ose o% controverting "etitionersB claim that the+ should *e charged with one o%%ense onl+3 we 7uote with a""roval 5ranch .Bs com"arative anal+sis o% 'D (=/13 'D >.3 RA 1.23 and Article )/0 o% the R'C showing that in each o% these laws on which "etitioners were charged3 there is one essential element not re7uired o% the others Conse7uentl+3 the %iling o% the multi"le charges against "etitioners3 although *ased on the same incident3 is consistent with settled doctrine There is du"licit+ o% charges when a single 8n%ormation charges more than one o%%ense The %iling o% the multi"le charges against "etitioners3 although *ased on the same incident3 is consistent with settled doctrine n "etitionersB claim that the charge %or violation o% Article )/0 o% the R'C a*sor*s the charges %or violation o% 'D (=/13 'D >.3 and RA 1.23 su%%ice it to sa+ that a mala in se %elon+3 such as Rec4less 8m"rudence Resulting in Damage to 'ro"ert+3 cannot a*sor* mala prohibita crimes3 such as those violating 'D (=/13 'D >.3 and RA 1.2 hat ma4es the %ormer a %elon+ is criminal intent #dolo$ or negligence #cul"a$; what ma4es the latter crimes are the s"ecial laws enacting them The "etition is denied P%-# 16 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
G.R. No. 13'58. !#4##7 22, 2))) MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. A"BERTO G. BUMO"O ;/ ;s o/ #% %/0 %s A$$o7/#=(;/(>%4$ o B#/;$o C%4;;, Co/4;$%Boo, P%$7;4;o !%o, +%4;/$o A;-=o/, Ao/so M%00%%$, To#0o G;%o, +os# T;-o %/0 P#$#7 C%;--%$Boo, !A"TON PACI>IC RESOURCES, INC., OROPI"IPPINES VENTURES INC., %/0 $# MINES A!+U!ICATION BOAR! ?MAB@
FACTS: arco""er ining Cor"oration registered its mining claims in 'ao3 Jasi*u3 NuevaIi,ca+a with the DENR The "rivate res"ondents also registered their mining claims in the same area The claims were su*se7uentl+ converted into ineral 'roduction Sharing Agreements #'SA$ The "etitioner entered into an "tion Agreements over the mining claims with res"ondents The "etitioner was granted the e&clusive right to e&"lore the mining claims %or three +ears 8n (>2 and (>13 the "etitioner %iled 'ros"ecting 'ermit A""lications #''A$ with the DENR and De"artment o% Agrarian Re%orm #DAR$3 *ut in ((3 the "etitioner in%ormed the res"ondents that it was terminating the Agreements 8t was %ound out that the area was relativel+ wea4 and o% limited tonnage which did not 6usti%+ %urther drilling %or *ig tonnage o% low grade gold e&"loration target n the same +ear3 the ''A and "etitionerBs su*se7uent re7uest %or reconsideration was re6ected *+ the DENR3 however3 DAR issued a clearance %or si& months The "etitioner a""ealed to the ines Ad6udication 5oard #A5$ where the "revious decision was a%%irmed A5 also denied "etitionerBs motion 8SS9E: hether or not the res"ondent A5 erred in %inding that the area su*6ect o% the ''A was outside the agat River Forest Reservation @ELD: No The "etition lac4s merit Factual %indings o% 7uasi-6udicial agencies which have ac7uired e&"ertise in matters entrusted to their 6urisdictions are accorded *+ the Court not onl+ res"ect *ut %inalit+ i% su""orted *+ su*stantial evidence 8n this instance3 there is no reason to disagree with res"ondent A5 The "etitioner terminated the "tion Agreements with res"ondents *ut it still showed interest when it %iled a ''A over the area 'etitionerBs action o% %iling a ''A over the area it "reviousl+ %ound relativel+ wea4 and o% limited tonnage was a*surd Furthermore3 the circumstance that the area covered *+ "etitioners ''A is outside the agat River Forest Reservation has *een ade7uatel+ esta*lished *+ the %ollowing evidence: #a$ con%irmation as earl+ as a+ (> *+ the Forest Engineering Section o% Tuguegarao3 Caga+an; #*$ the
P%-# 1* o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
documents which the Regional E&ecutive Directors relied u"on in den+ing the ''A had alread+ settled the issue The "etition is denied G.R. No. 1*8188 O"YMPIC MINES AN! !EVE"OPMENT CORP. v. P"ATINUM GROUP META"S CORPORATION G.R. No. 18)6* CITINICE" MINES AN! !EVE"OPMENT CORPORATION v. ON. +U!GE BIENVENI!O C. B"ANCA>"OR, ;/ ;s 4%<%4;$= %s $# P7#s;0;/+0-# o $# R#-;o/% T7;% Co7$ o P%%%/, B7%/4 '5, P#7$o P7;/4#s% C;$=, P%%%/, %/0 P"ATINUM GROUP META" CORPORATION G.R. No. 18111 P"ATINUM GROUP META"S CORPORATION v. CITINICE" MINES AN! !EVE"OPMENT CORPORATION, %4$;/- o7 ;$s o/ ;/$#7#s$ %/0 o/ #% o O"YMPIC MINES AN! !EVE"OPMENT CORPORATION G.R. No. 18352* P"ATINUM GROUP META"S CORPORATION v. COURT O> APPEA"S %/0 PO""Y C. !Y
FACTS: 8n (1( and (>=3 l+m"ic was granted ining Lease Contracts *+ the DENR Secretar+ covering mining areas in the Narra and Es"anola3 'alawan 8n 2==)3 l+m"ic entered into an "erating Agreement with 'latinum where*+ 'latinum was given the e&clusive right to control3 "ossess3 manage?o"erate3 and conduct mining o"erations3 and to mar4et or dis"ose mining "roducts on the Toronto Nic4el ine in Narra3 and the 'ulot Nic4el ine in Es"anola %or a "eriod o% 20 +ears 8n return3 'latinum would "a+ l+m"ic a ro+alt+ %ee o% 2OK o% the gross revenues Su*se7uentl+3 l+m"ic and 'latinum were granted government "ermits and environmental com"liance certi%icates 8n 2==/3 l+m"ic in%ormed 'latinum o% the immediate termination o% the "erating Agreement on account o% 'latinumBs gross violations o% its terms3 and directed 'latinum to surrender "ossession o% the su*6ect mining areas 8n 2==/3 l+m"ic instituted an action %or the issuance o% an in6unctive writ against 'latinum The RTC dismissed l+m"icBs com"laint l+m"ic then %iled two cases with the DENR The %irst case was dismissed and the other was su*se7uentl+ wihdrawn *+ l+m"ic eanwhile3 without the 4nowledge or consent o% 'latinum3 l+m"ic trans%erred its a""lications %or mineral agreements3 including its rights under the "erating Agreement3 to Citinic4el via a Deed o% Assignment in 2==/3 This was a""roved *+ the Regional Director o% the ines and !eosciences 5ureau # MGB$ Citinic4el %iled ) administrative cases Citinic4elBs "etition to cancel 'latinumBs SS's was dismissed Citinic4elBs re7uest %or the cancellation o% the Environmental Com"liance Certi%icates # ECCs$ o% 'latinum was not granted *+ the %%ice o% the 'resident 8n the other case3 the 'A issued a Resolution to cancel the "erating Agreement as P%-# 18 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
well as 'latinumBs SS's3 and ordered 'latinum to cease and desist %rom o"erating the su*6ect mining areas The a""ellate court dismissed 'latinumBs certiorari "etition 'latinum %iled %our "etitions 8n !R No (>((.(3 'latinum contends that the non-%iling o% an a""eal with the A5 would *e useless3 as the 'A declared that its decision to cancel the "erating Agreement was not 6ust its own3 *ut also that o% the DENR3 which includes the A5 !R Nos (1>(>>3 (>=/1.3 and (>)021 involve issues arising %rom the com"laint %or 7uieting o% title3 damages3 *reach o% contract3 and s"eci%ic "er%ormance %iled *+ 'latinum against l+m"ic 8SS9ES: hether or not the 'A has the authorit+ to hear and decide the dis"ute *etween l+m"ic?Citinic4el and 'latinum3 as "arties to the o"erating agreement @ELD: No Although Section 11 #d$ o% the ining Act has trans%erred to the 'A 6urisdiction over dis"utes "ending *e%ore the 5ureau o% ines and the DENR3 it did not include all other %orms o% contracts involving mining rights nor a general catch-all "hrase to cover other agreements involving mining rights 'ABs 6urisdiction over dis"utes involving rights to mining areas has nothing to do with the cancellation o% existing mineral agreements The "erating Agreement is not a contract *etween the government and a contractor; instead3 it is a purely civil contract between two private entities one o% whom ha""ens to *e a "art+ to a mineral agreement with the government3 and to contend that a dis"ute involving o"erating agreements can *e classi%ied as a dis"ute involving mineral agreements or "ermits stretches the de%inition o% mineral agreement *e+ond the clear terms o% the law The ining Act has limited the 6urisdiction o% the 'A3 as successor o% the ad6udicator+ %unctions o% the 5ureau o% ines3 to mineral agreements *etween the government and the "rivate contractor therwise stated3 while dis"utes *etween "arties to an+ mining contract3 including o"erating agreements3 ma+ "reviousl+ %all within the 5ureau o% inesB 6urisdiction under 'D No (2>(3 it can no longer *e so "laced now within the authorit+ o% the 'A to settle under Section 11 #*$ o% the ining Law *ecause its 6urisdiction has *een limited to the resolution o% dis"utes involving public mineral agreements Since the "erating Agreement is not the mineral agreement contem"lated *+ law3 the contention that 6urisdiction should *e with the 'A under Section 11#*$ o% the ining Act cannot *e legall+ correct 8n "lainer terms3 no 6urisdiction vests in the 'A under the cited "rovision *ecause the "erating Agreement is not the mineral agreement that Section 11#*$ re%ers to Additionall+3 the Court notes that *oth l+m"ic and Citinic4el have "reviousl+ recogni,ed the RTCBs 6urisdiction to decide the dis"ute when the+ %iled civil cases *e%ore the trial courts o% 'alawan and 'araPa7ue3 res"ectivel+3 %or the cancellation o% the "erating Agreement on account o% 'latinumBs alleged gross violations 5+ doing so3 *oth l+m"ic and Citinic4el ac4nowledged the authorit+ and 6urisdiction o% the trial court to resolve their dis"ute with 'latinum 8n other words3 the+ are now esto""ed %rom claiming that the 'A3 rather than the trial court3 has the sole and e&lcusive authorit+ to resolve the issue o% whether the P%-# 1' o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
"erating Agreement ma+ *e rescinded %or 'latinumBs alleged violations ith the %oregoing3 the Court a%%irmed the 6urisdiction o% the RTC o% 'uerto 'rincesa3 'alawan3 5ranch 03 and dismissed l+m"icBs "etition %or review on certiorari in !R (1>(>> 'latinumBs "etition in !R No (>)021 was granted 8n the other case3 although the Deed o% Assignment *etween l+m"ic and Citinic4el was e&ecuted on =/1.$ %or lac4 o% merit !oing into the merits o% !R No (>((.(3 the Court %inds that the 'A Resolution was issued in disregard o% the in6unctive writs in Civil Case No .( 5oth l+m"ic and Citinic4el evidentl+ tri%led with the courts and a*used its "rocesses *+ im"ro"erl+ instituting several cases *e%ore various 6udicial and 7uasi 6udicial *odies3 one case a%ter another3 some even simultaneousl+ %iled during the "endenc+ o% other cases3 once it *ecame evident that a %avora*le decision will not *e o*tained in the "reviousl+ %iled case all o% which are %ocused on the termination o% the "erating Agreement and the cancellation o% 'latinumBs mining "ermits The actions o% l+m"ic and Citinic4el3 ta4en se"aratel+ or collectivel+3 *etra+ a "attern o% calculated and intentional %orum sho""ing that warrants denial o% the relie%s the+ "ra+ %or Thus3 the Court grants 'latinumBs "etition in !R No (>((.(3 and annul the 'A Resolution The Court ruled that in !R Nos (1>(>> and (>=/1.3 the assailed CA Decisions are a%%irmed3 while in !R Nos (>)021 and (>((.(3 the assailed CA Resolutions are reversed and set aside
P%-# 2) o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
G.R. No. 1635)' !#4##7 6, 2))6 PICOP RESOURCES, INC. v. BASE META"S MINERA" RESOURCES CORPORATION, %/0 TE MINES A!+U!ICATION BOAR!
FACTS: 8n (>13 the Central indanao ining and Develo"ment Cor"oration #CC8$ entered into a ines "erating Agreement #Agreement$ with 5anahaw ining and Develo"ment Cor"oration #5anahaw ining$ %or the e&"loration3 develo"ment3 and eventual commercial o"eration o% CC8Bs (> mining claims in Agusan del Sur 8n (>3 5anahaw ining was issued a ines Tem"orar+ 'ermit which u"on e&"iration was renewed thrice Also3 in a emorandum o% Agreement3 '8C' allowed 5anahaw ining a right o% wa+ to its mining claims 8n ((3 5anahaw ining converted its mining claims to a""lications %or ineral 'roduction Sharing Agreements #'SA$ hile the 'SA were "ending3 5anahaw ining sold its rights and interests over )1 mining claims to 5ase etals ineral Resources Cor"oration #5ase etals$ This included those covered *+ its mining o"erating agreement with CC8 The CC8 a""roved the assignment and recogni,ed 5ase etals as the new o"erator o% its claims 8n (13 'SA a""lications were "u*lished in accordance with the re7uirements o% the ining Act o% (0 '8C' o""osed the a""lication 8n (>3 the 'anel Ar*itrator disa""roved the a""lication 5ase etals %iled a Notice o% A""eal with A5 5ase etalsB 'SABs were reinstated The Court o% A""eals u"held the decision o% the A5 The Court o% A""eals noted that the reinstatement o% the 'SA does not im"air '8C'Bs tim*er license 5ase etals had alread+ secured the necessar+ Area Status and Clearance %rom the DENR and the areas a""lied %or are not closed to mining o"erations The CA denied '8C'Bs otion %or Reconsideration '8C' contends that its concession area is within the Agusan-Surigao-Davao Forest Reserve esta*lished under 'roclamation No )/ and is closed to mining a""lication "ursuant to RA 1.2 8SS9E: hether or not the 2310/ hectares su*6ect o% 5ase etalsB 'SA are closed to mining o"erations
P%-# 21 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
@ELD: No There is no merit to '8C'Bs contention that the area covered *+ 5ase etalsB 'SA is3 *+ law3 closed to mining activities Sec / o% RA 1.2 "rovides that mining o"erations in reserved lands other than mineral reservations ma+ *e underta4en *+ the DENR3 su*6ect to certain limitations RA 1.2 does not disallow mining a""lications in all %orest reserves *ut onl+ those proclaimed as watershed forest reserves There is no evidence in this case that the area covered *+ 5ase etalsB 'SA has *een "roclaimed as watershed %orest reserves oreover3 Sec (> RA 1.2 allows mining even in tim*erland or %orestr+ su*6ect to e&isting rights and reservations Sec .1 o% 'D 1=0 "ermits mining o"erations in %orest lands which include the "u*lic %orest3 the "ermanent %orest or %orest reserves3 and %orest reservations Furthermore3 these "rovisions do not re7uire that the consent o% e&isting licensees *e o*tained *ut that the+ *e noti%ied *e%ore mining activities ma+ *e commenced inside %orest concessions '8C' also %ailed to "resent an+ evidence that the area covered *+ the 'SA is a "rotected wilderness area designated as an initial com"onent o% the National 8ngrated 'rotected Areas S+stem #N8'AS$ "ursuant to a law3 "residential decree3 "residential "roclamation or e&ecutive order as re7uired *+ RA 10>/ 8n addition3 the 'residential arrant+ cannot3 in an+ manner3 *e construed as a contractual underta4ing assuring '8C' o% e&clusive "ossession and en6o+ment o% its concession areas The Court em"hasi,ed that the reinstatement o% 5ase etalsB 'SA does not automaticall+ result in its a""roval 5ase etals still has to com"l+ with the re7uirements outlined in DENR Administrative rder #DA /-.=$3 including the "u*lication?"osting?radio announcement o% its mineral agreement a""lication The "etition is denied
P%-# 22 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
G.R. No. 1*'6* += 28, 2))' PYRO COPPER MINING CORPORATION v. MINES A!+U!ICATION BOAR!(!EPARTMENT O> ENVIRONMENT AN! NATURA" RESOURCES, MINES AN! GEO(SCIENCES BUREAU !IRECTOR ORACIO C. RAMOS, REGIONA" !IRECTOR SAMUE" T. PARAGAS, REGIONA" PANE" O> ARBITRATORS ATTY. C"ARO E. RAMO"ETE, +R., ATTY. +OSEP ESTRE""A %/0 ENGR. RENATO RIMAN!O, %/0 MONTAGUE RESOURCES PI"IPPINES CORPORATION
FACTS: 'etitioner is engaged in mining *usiness 8n 2===3 the ineral 'roduction Sharing Agreement #'SA No (0)-2===-($ was issued to the "etitioner %or the e&"loration3 develo"ment and commercial utili,ation o% certain "+rite ore and other mineral de"osits in a .3)/=1(-hectare land in Dasol3 'angasinan Res"ondent3 also a cor"oration engaged in mining *usiness3 %iled an a""lication %or A""lication %or E&"loration 'ermit over the same area in 2==) 'rior to "etitionerBs o""osition3 the "etitionerBs 'SA was cancelled 8n 2==03 the ines and !eo-Sciences 5ureau #!5$ issued E' No =0-==( to "rivate res"ondent The 'anel o% Ar*itrators dismissed the "etitionerBs Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition 'etitioner a""ealed to the A5 then to the CA The "etition was dismissed The CA also denied the "etitionerBs otion %or Reconsideration 8SS9E: #($ hether or not the Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition o% "etitioner to the A""lication %or E&"loration 'ermit o% "rivate res"ondent was %iled out o% time #2$ hether or not the issuance *+ the DENR Secretar+ o% D No 2==0=) in Fe*ruar+ 2==0 which cancelled 'SA No (0)-2===-( o% "etitioner and the issuance *+ !5 o% E' No =0-==( in %avor o% "rivate res"ondent in Se"tem*er 2==0 rendered the Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition o% "etitioner moot and academic
P%-# 23 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
@ELD: #($ Qes The Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition to the A""lication %or E&"loration 'ermit o% the res"ondent was %iled *e+ond the reglementar+ "eriod 8n the "resent case3 notices o% the A""lication %or E&"loration 'ermit o% "rivate res"ondent were "u*lished in news"a"ers3 announced on the radio3 and "osted in "u*lic "laces The "osting was done the latest3 so we rec4on the last "ossi*le date "etitioner could have validl+ %iled its Ieri%ied 'etition?""osition with the 'anel o% Ar*itrators there%rom Since the notice o% the A""lication %or E&"loration 'ermit o% "rivate res"ondent was last "osted on 3 2==03 the )=-da+ reglementar+ "eriod %or %iling an+ adverse claim?"rotest?o""osition thereto ended on August 213 2==0 As "etitioner e&"lained3 however3 August 213 2==0 was a Saturda+; and August 23 2==03 onda+3 was declared a national holida+3 so the ne&t wor4ing da+ was August )=3 2==03 Tuesda+ 'etitioner did send its Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition3 through registered mail3 on August )=3 2==03 as evidenced *+ the A%%idavit o% Service o% even date and Registr+ Recei"ts No (=(>(; No (=(>2; No (=(>); and No (=(>. Nevertheless3 the Court still could not consider the Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition o% "etitioner as having *een %iled within the reglementar+ "eriod The Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition o% "etitioner to the A""lication %or E&"loration 'ermit o% res"ondent is deemed %iled with the 'anel o% Ar*itrators onl+ u"on "a+ment o% the "rescri*ed doc4et %ee on Se"tem*er /3 2==03 clearl+ *e+ond the reglementar+ "eriod3 which ended on August )=3 2==0 #2$ Qes The 'anel o% Ar*itrators dismissed the Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition o% "etitioner *ecause it has *ecome moot and academic hen the e&"loration "ermit issued to "rivate res"ondent3 "etitioner had nothing more to "rotest?o""ose ore im"ortantl+3 with the issuance *+ !5 o% E' No =0-==( to "rivate res"ondent3 the remed+ o% "etitioner is to see4 the cancellation thereo% The 'anel o% Ar*itrators cannot sim"l+ consider or convert the Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition o% "etitioner to the A""lication %or E&"loration 'ermit o% res"ondent as a "etition %or the cancellation o% E' No =0-==( Since the 'anel o% Ar*itrators can no longer grant "etitioner an+ actual su*stantial relie% *+ reason o% the %oregoing circumstances3 then the Ieri%ied 'rotest?""osition o% "etitioner was a""ro"riatel+ dismissed %or *eing moot and academic Furthermore3 the 'anel o% Ar*itrators onl+ has 6urisdiction over adverse claims3 con%licts3 and o""ositions relating to a""lications %or the grant o% mineral rights3 *ut not over cancellation o% mineral rights alread+ granted and e&isting The authorit+ to den+3 revo4e3 or cancel E' No =0-==( o% res"ondent is lodged with the !53 and not with the 'anel o% Ar*itrators The "etition is denied
P%-# 2 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
G.R. No."('1)'. !#4##7 1, 1'8* SANTA ROSA MINING COMPANY, INC. v. ON. MINISTER O> NATURA" RESOURCES +OSE +. "EI!O, +R. AN! !IRECTOR O> MINES +UANITO C. >ERNAN!E:
FACTS: Santa Rosa ining Com"an+3 8nc3 a mining cor"oration3 alleges that it holds %i%t+ mining claims in
P%-# 25 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
8SS9E: hether or not 'residential Decree No (2(. is constitutional @ELD: The Court ruled that 'residential Decree No (2(. is constitutional 8t is a valid e&ercise o% the sovereign "ower o% the State3 as owner3 over lands o% the "u*lic domain3 o% which "etitioners mining claims still %orm a "art3 and over the "atrimon+ o% the nation3 o% which mineral de"osits are a valua*le asset 8t ma+ *e underscored3 in this connection3 that the Decree does not cover all mining claims located under the 'hil 5ill o% (=23 *ut onl+ those claims over which their locators had %ailed to o*tain a "atent ere location does not mean a*solute ownershi" over the a%%ected land or the mining claim 8t merel+ segregates the located land or area %rom the "u*lic domain *+ *arring other would-*e locators %rom locating the same and a""ro"riating %or themselves the minerals %ound therein oreover3 'D No (2(. is in accord with Sec 23 Art 88 o% the (>1 Constitution which "rovides that MAll lands o% the "u*lic domain3 waters3 minerals3 coal3 "etroleum3 and other mineral oils3 all %orces o% "otential energ+3 %isheries3 %orests or tim*er3 wildli%e3 %lora and %auna3 and other natural resources are owned *+ the State ith the e&ce"tion o% agricultural lands3 all other natural resources shall not *e alienated The e&"loration3 develo"ment3 and utili,ation o% natural resources shall *e under the %ull control and su"ervision o% the State The "etition is dismissed
G.R. No. 1351'). A<7; 3, 2))2 SOUTEAST MIN!ANAO GO"! MINING CORPORATION v. BA"ITE PORTA" MINING COOPERATIVE %/0 o$#7s s;;%7= s;$%$#0 %/0 TE ONORAB"E ANTONIO CERI""ES, ;/ ;s 4%<%4;$= %s S#47#$%7= o $# !#<%7$#/$ o E/v;7o/#/$ %/0 N%$7% R#so74#s ?!ENR@, PROVINCIA" MINING REGU"ATORY BOAR! O> !AVAO ?PMRB(!%v%o@
FACTS: The case involves the Diwalwal !old Rush Area3 a rich tract o% mineral land situated in the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve 8n (>>3 arco""er ining Cor"oration #arco""er$ was granted E&"loration 'ermit No ()) #E' No ())$ over the Diwalwal area 8n ((3 the Congress enacted Re"u*lic Act No 1=1/ or the 'eo"leBs Small-Scale ining Act which authori,ed the 'rovincial ining Regulator+ 5oard #'R5$ to declare and set aside small-scale mining areas su*6ect to review *+ the DENR Secretar+ and award mining contracts to small-scale miners under certain conditions Su*se7uentl+3 DENR Secretar+ Factoran issued De"artment Administrative rder #DA$ No //3 declaring 12 hectares o% the Diwalwal area as non-%orest land o"en to small-scale mining A "etition %or the cancellation o% E' No ()) and the admission o% a ineral 'roduction Sharing Arrangement #'SA$ "ro"osal over Diwalwal was %iled *e%ore the DENR Regional E&ecutive Director hile the case is "ending3 arco""er assigned its E' No ()) to "etitioner Southeast indanao !old ining
P%-# 26 o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
Cor"oration #SE$ The SE a""lied %or an integrated 'SA over the land covered *+ the "ermit which was a""roved 8n (03 Re"u*lic Act No 1.2 or the 'hili""ine ining Act was enacted and mining cases were re%erred to a Regional 'anel o% Ar*itrators #R'A$ 8n (13 the 'rovincial ining Regulator+ 5oard o% Davao "assed Resolution No 2/3 Series o% (13 authori,ing the issuance o% ore trans"ort "ermits #T's$ to smallscale miners o"erating in the Diwalwal mines The "etitioner %iled a com"laint The R'A reiterated the validit+ o% the E' No ()) The "etitioner elevated the case to the CA *ut it was dismissed 8SS9ES: hether or not the Court o% A""eals erred when it concluded that the assailed memorandum order did not ado"t the direct state utili,ation scheme in resolving the Diwalwal dis"ute @ELD: NoThe Court agrees with the Court o% A""ealsB ruling that the challenged 1-=) did not conclusivel+ ado"t direct state utili,ation as a "olic+ in resolving the Diwalwal dis"ute The terms o% the memorandum clearl+ indicate that what was directed thereunder was merel+ a stud+ o% this o"tion and nothing else Contrar+ to "etitionerBs contention3 it did not grant an+ management?o"erating or "ro%it-sharing agreement to small-scale miners or to an+ "art+3 %or that matter3 *ut sim"l+ instructed the DENR o%%icials concerned to underta4e studies to determine its %easi*ilit+ 8ncidentall+3 it must li4ewise *e "ointed out that under no circumstances ma+ "etitionerBs rights under E' No ()) *e regarded as total and a*solute As correctl+ held *+ the Court o% A""eals in its challenged decision3 E' No ()) merel+ evidences a "rivilege granted *+ the State3 which ma+ *e amended3 modi%ied or rescinded when the national interest so re7uires This is necessaril+ so since the e&"loration3 develo"ment and utili,ation o% the countr+Bs natural mineral resources are matters im"ressed with great "u*lic interest 'ursuant to Article 883 Section 23 o% the (>1 Constitution and Section .3 Cha"ter 88 o% the 'hili""ine ining Act o% (03 the State ma+ "ursue the constitutional "olic+ o% %ull control and su"ervision o% the e&"loration3 develo"ment and utili,ation o% the countr+Bs natural mineral resources3 *+ either directl+ underta4ing the same or *+ entering into agreements with 7uali%ied entities The DENR Secretar+ acted within his authorit+ when he ordered a stud+ o% the %irst o"tion3 which ma+ *e underta4en consistentl+ in accordance with the constitutional "olic+ enunciated a*ove *viousl+3 the State ma+ not *e "recluded %rom considering a direct ta4eover o% the mines3 i% it is the onl+ "lausi*le remed+ in sight to the gnawing com"le&ities generated *+ the gold rush As im"lied earlier3 the State need *e guided onl+ *+ the demands o% "u*lic interest in settling %or this o"tion3 as well as its material and logistic %easi*ilit+ The "etition is denied
P%-# 2* o 2'
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
G.R. No. 6'''*. S#<$##7 3), 1'8* UNGAY MA"OBAGO MINES, INC v. ON. INTERME!IATE APPE""ATE COURT, !IRECTOR O> "AN!S, GREGORIA BO"ANOS, AUREA ARAO+O, GERVACIO ARAO+O, MARIA BERNA", >E"IX !ETECIO, +ESUS ASUNCION, ME"ANIO ASUNCION %/0 BIENVENI!O ASUNCION
FACTS: 8n (03
BAUTISTA, EUGENICE IVY GWYNN U.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law N
Section 2-C
Case Digests
reversion should *e instituted *+ the Re"u*lic through the Solicitor !eneral The "etitioner a""ealed to the 8ntermediate A""ellate Court which a%%irmed the "revious decision 8SS9ES: #($ hether or not the a""ellate court committed an error o% law when it ruled that the lands in 7uestion *elong to the "u*lic domain; #2$ hether or not the a""ellate court erred in dismissing the com"laint on the ground that the "etitioner had no "ersonalit+ to institute the same @ELD: #($ No The Court ruled %or the "rivate res"ondents A""l+ing Article 8883 Section ( o% the ()0 Constitution to the case at *ar3 the Court conclude that the issuance o% the lode "atents on mineral claims *+ the 'resident o% the 'hili""ines in (/2 in %avor o% the "etitioner granted to it onl+ the right to e&tract or utili,e the minerals which ma+ *e %ound on or under the sur%ace o% the land n the other hand3 the issuance o% the %ree "atents *+ the res"ondent Director o% Lands in (1 in %avor o% the "rivate res"ondents granted to them the ownershi" and the right to use the land %or agricultural "ur"oses *ut e&cluding the ownershi" o%3 and the right to e&tract or utili,e3 the minerals which ma+ *e %ound on or under the sur%ace Although the original certi%icates o% titles o% the "etitioner were issued "rior to the titles o% the "rivate res"ondents3 the %ormer cannot "revail over the latter %or the "rovisions o% the Constitution which governed at the time o% their issuance "rohi*ited the alienation o% mineral lands o% the "u*lic domain #2$ No The a""ellate court did not err in concluding that the "etitioner has no "ersonalit+ to institute the action %or annulment and cancellation o% "atents The mineral lands over which it has a right to e&tract minerals remained "art o% the inaliena*le lands o% the "u*lic domain and thus3 onl+ the Solicitor !eneral or the "erson acting in his stead can *ring an action %or reversion The "etition is dismissed %or lac4 o% merit
P%-# 2' o 2'
