john eric loney
TRANSCRIPT
JOHN ERIC LONEY, G.R. No. 152644February 10, 2006
STEVEN PAUL REID andPEDRO B. HERNANDEZ,
Petitioners,
- versus -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioners John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro B. Hernandez are the President and Chief Executive Officer, Senior Manager, and Resident Manager for Mining Operations, respectively, of Marcopper Mining Corporation (“Marcopper”), a corporation engaged in mining in the province of Marinduque.
Marcopper had been storing tailings from its operations in a pit that discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac and Makalupnit rivers.
The Department of Justice separately charged petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court of Boac, Marinduque (“MTC”) with violation of Article 91(B), sub-paragraphs 5 and 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines (“PD 1067”), Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 984 or the National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (“PD 984”), Section 108 of Republic Act No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (“RA 7942”), and Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property.
Petitioners moved to quash the Informations on the following grounds: (1) the Informations were “duplicitous” as the Department of Justice charged more than one offense for a single act; (2) petitioners John Eric Loney and Steven Paul Reid were not yet officers of Marcopper when the incident subject of the Informations took place; and (3) the Informations contain allegations which constitute legal excuse or justification.
MTC issued a Consolidated Order on (“Consolidated Order”), granting partial reconsideration to its Joint Order and quashing the Informations for violation of PD 1067 and PD 984. The MTC maintained the Informations for violation of RA 7942 and Article 365 of the RPC. Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court, Boac, Marinduque, assailing that portion of the Consolidated Order maintaining the Informations for violation of RA 7942. In its Resolution of 20 March 1998, The RTC granted public respondent’s appeal but denied petitioners’ petition. Branch 94 set aside the Consolidated Order in so far as it quashed the Informations for violation of PD 1067 and PD 984 and ordered those charges reinstated. RTC affirmed the Consolidated Order in all other respects. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Petitioners contended that since the acts complained of in the charges for violation of PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942 are “the very same acts complained of” in the charge for violation of Article 365 of the RPC, the latter absorbs the former. Hence, petitioners should only be prosecuted for violation of Article 365 of the RPC. The Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s ruling.
ISSUE:
Whether all the charges filed against petitioners except one should be quashed for duplicity of charges and only the charge for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property should stand.
HELD:
There is no duplicity of charges in the present case.
There is duplicity (or multiplicity) of charges when a single Information charges more than one offense. Under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, duplicity of offenses in a single information is a ground to quash the Information. The Rules prohibit the filing of such Information to avoid confusing the accused in preparing his defense. Here, however, the prosecution charged each petitioner with four offenses, with each Information charging only one offense. Thus, petitioners erroneously invoke duplicity of charges as a ground to quash the Informations. On this score alone, the petition deserves outright denial.
G.R. No. 139548. December 22, 2000
MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ALBERTO G. BUMOLO in his own behalf and as Attorney-in-Fact of Benito Cachili, Conchita Bumolo, Patricio Dumlao, Jacinto Aliguyon, Alfonso Maddawat, Toledo Gillao, Jose Tigo and Peter Cabiggat Bumolo, DALTON PACIFIC RESOURCES, INC., OROPHILIPPINES VENTURES INC., and the MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD (MAB), respondents.
.
FACTS:MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION registered its mining claims in Pao, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) from 2 February 1982 to 12 October 1982. Private respondents Alberto G. Bumolo, Benito Cachili, Conchita Bumolo, Patricio Dumlao, Jacinto Aliguyon, Alfonso Maddawat, Toledo Gillao, Jose Tigo and Peter Cabiggat Bumolo and others, namely, Rosario Camma, Mariano Maddela, Victor Guiaoan and Catalino Randa, registered their mining claims in the same area from 28 July 1981 to 22 September 1988, which claims were subsequently converted into Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA).
On 12 March 1982 petitioner entered into Option Agreements over the mining. Under the Agreements, petitioner was granted the exclusive and irrevocable right to explore the mining claims for three (3) years with provision for extension.
On 23 December 1982 and 26 March 1987 petitioner filed Prospecting Permit Applications (PPA) with the Bureau of Forest Development, DENR, on the alleged ground that a portion of the area covered by the mining claims was within the Magat River Forest Reservation under Proc. 573 of 26 June 1969 and with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) on account of alleged coverage of the other portion within the Nueva Vizcaya-Quirino Civil Reservation under Proc. 1498 of 11 September 1975.
On 11 February 1991 and 12 March 1991 petitioner informed respondent Alberto G. Bumolo and Rosario Camma that it was terminating the Agreements since its conduct of a systematic exploration program disclosed that the area was relatively weak and of limited tonnage which did not justify further drilling for big tonnage of low grade gold exploration target.
On 15 July 1991 Executive Director Leonardo A. aat rPejected petitioner’s Prospecting Permit Application (PPA) on the ground that the Memorandum of 8 July 1991 endorsed by the Regional Technical Director for Mines revealed that the area covered was outside government reservation; that the prospect claim was in conflict with existing claims; and, that the area had been extensively explored in the early 1980's.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration. Regional Executive Director Samuel Paragas recommended to the DENR Secretary that petitioner's request for reconsideration be denied; that the existing rights of mining claim holders be respected; and, that the prior legal rights of MPSA/Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement applicants over subject area be recognized.
As regards petitioner's PPA filed with the DAR, it appeared that it was issued a clearance to prospect for six (6) months from 11 December 1995.
On 15 August 1997 petitioner appealed to public respondent Mines Adjudication Board (MAB), DENR, . Petitioner maintained that
subject area was within the Magat River Forest Reservation. On 11 June 1998 the rejection of the PPA was affirmed whereas the mining claims of respondents Alberto G. Bumolo et al. that had been converted into a MPSA, subject to compliance with R.A. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40, were given due course.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration. On 29 March 1999 private respondents Dalton Pacific Resources (Dalton) and Orophilippines Ventures, Inc. (OVI) filed an Omnibus Motion for their joinder as parties on the ground that on 17 July 1992 they had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with respondent Alberto G. Bumolo on his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact of Camma, et al. granting the companies exclusive and irrevocable right to explore and operate the area subject of the mining claims. On 13 May 1999 respondent MAB denied petitioner’s motion and formally joined respondents Dalton and OVI with the original appellees as parties in the case.
ISSUE:
whether respondent MAB erred in finding that the area subject of the PPA was outside the Magat River Forest Reservatio
HELD:
Respondent MAB correctly upheld the ratiocination of Regional Executive Director Paragas in denying petitioner's PPA, pertinent portions of which read -
x x x x the said rejection by the region was anchored on the July 8, 1991 Memorandum Report of then RTD for Mines Nestor Punsal, Jr. to then RED Leonardo A. Paat x x x wherein it was clearly cited that Marcopper’s proposed prospecting area covering about 4,941 hectares lies outside Magat Forest Reserve. Such being the case, a PPA is not the proper instrument for said company to avail of in order to have the right to prospect over the area. Instead, the filing of Declarations of Location (DOL) would have been proper.
The disapproval of Marcopper’s PPA moreover, did not emanate from a single recommendation of the RTD for Mines. Records would show that as early as May 31, 1989 x x x the Bumolo group of PD 463 claims which Marcopper has eventually surrounded by filing its own PAO 1-30 group of claims x x x x was confirmed by the Forest Engineering Section of the region to be outside proclaimed watershed areas, wilderness, national parks and existing government reforestation projects x x x x
In other words, the circumstance that the area covered by petitioner's PPA is outside the Magat River Forest Reservation has been adequately established by the
following evidence: (a) confirmation as early as 31 May 1989 by the Forest Engineering Section of Tuguegarao, Cagayan; (b) the 8 July 1991 Memorandum Report of Regional Technical Director Punsal Jr.; and, (c) plotting provided by the National Mapping and Resources Information Authority per its 2 June 1995 indorsement of the maps to the office of the Regional Executive Director. Petitioner contests the exclusion of the area subject of its PPA within the Magat River Forest Reservation based merely on the alleged "typographical error committed by somebody in the Engineering Section of the DENR." Aside from the fact that the allegation does not have anything to support it, the aforementioned documents which the Regional Executive Directors relied upon in denying the PPA had already settled the issue.
Furthermore, respondent MAB even fortified the bases for the rejection of petitioner's PPA. As plotted by the Lands Management Sector of DENR Region 2 contained in the sketch plan of 11 November 1996 and as shown in the Land Use map of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of Dupax, Nueva Vizcaya, the area covered under the PPA is indeed outside any government reservation.
G.R. No. 98332. January 16, 1995
MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, and JOEL D. MUYCO, Director of Mines and Geosciences Bureau, respondents.
FACTS:
Pursuant to Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279, authorizing the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint venture, co-production, or production-sharing agreements for the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources, and prescribing the guidelines for such agreements and those agreements involving technical or financial assistance by foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, the DENR Secretary issued on DENR Administrative Order No. 57, series of 1989, entitled "Guidelines on Mineral Production Sharing Agreement under Executive Order No. 279." Under the transitory provision of said DENR Administrative Order No. 57, embodied in its Article 9, all existing mining leases or agreements which were granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, except small scale mining leases and those pertaining to sand and gravel and quarry resources covering an area of twenty (20) hectares or less, shall be converted into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines.
The Secretary of the DENR then further issued DENR Administrative Order No. 82, series of 1990, laying down the "Procedural Guidelines on the Award of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) through Negotiation."
The issuance and the impending implementation by the DENR of Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 after their respective effectivity dates compelled the Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc. to file the instant petition assailing their validity and constitutionality before this Court.
Petitioner Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc., mainly contends that the administrative orders do not conform with Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279, petitioner contends that both orders violate the non-impairment of contract provision under Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution on the ground that Administrative Order No. 57 unduly pre-terminates existing mining leases and other mining agreements and automatically converts them into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from its effectivity date. On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 82 declares that failure to submit Letters of Intent and Mineral Production-Sharing Agreements within two (2) years from the date of effectivity of said guideline or on July 17, 1991 shall cause the abandonment of their mining, quarry and sand gravel permits.
Petitioner argued that Executive Order No. 279 does not contemplate automatic conversion of mining lease agreements into mining production-sharing agreement as provided under Article 9, Administrative Order No. 57 and/or the consequent abandonment of mining claims for failure to submit LOIs and MPSAs under Section 3, Administrative Order No. 82 because Section 1 of said Executive Order No. 279 empowers the DENR Secretary to negotiate and enter into voluntary agreements which must set forth the minimum terms and conditions provided under
Section 2 thereof. Moreover, petitioner contends that the power to regulate and enter into mining agreements does not include the power to preterminate existing mining lease agreements.
ISSUE:
Whether or not DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 issued by the DENR Secretary are unconstitutional.
HELD:
NO. DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 are not unconstitutional.
The questioned administrative orders are reasonably directed to the accomplishment of the purposes of the law under which they were issued and were intended to secure the paramount interest of the public, their economic growth and welfare. The validity and constitutionality of Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 must be sustained, and their force and effect upheld.
Administrative Order No. 57 applies only to all existing mining leases or agreements which were granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. It bears mention that under the text of Executive Order No. 211, there is a reservation clause which provides that the privileges as well as the terms and conditions of all existing mining leases or agreements granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, shall be subject to any and all modifications or alterations which Congress may adopt pursuant to Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Hence, the strictures of the non-impairment of contract clause under Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution do not apply to the aforesaid mining leases or agreements granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. They can be amended, modified or altered by a statute passed by Congress to achieve the purposes of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
Moreover, nowhere in Administrative Order No. 57 is there any provision which would lead us to conclude that the questioned order authorizes the automatic conversion of mining leases and agreements granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, to production-sharing agreements. The provision in Article 9 of Administrative Order No. 57 that "all such leases or agreements shall be converted into production sharing agreements within one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines" could not possibly contemplate a unilateral declaration on the part of the Government that all existing mining leases and agreements are automatically converted into production-sharing agreements. On the contrary, the use of the term "production-sharing agreement" in the same provision implies negotiation between the Government and the applicants, if they are so minded. Negotiation negates compulsion or automatic conversion as suggested by petitioner in the instant petition. A mineral production-sharing agreement (MPSA) requires a meeting of the minds of the parties after negotiations arrived at in good faith and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the subsequent Administrative Order No. 82.
OLYMPIC MINES AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., Petitioner,
- versus - PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION, Respondent.
CITINICKEL MINES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,Petitioner,
- versus -
HON. JUDGE BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 95, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, and PLATINUM GROUP METAL CORPORATION, Respondents
PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
- versus -
CITINICKEL MINES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, acting for its own interest and on behalf of OLYMPIC MINES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
- versus -
COURT OF APPEALS and POLLY C. DY, Respondents
FACTS:
In 1971 and 1980, Olympic was granted “Mining Lease Contracts” by the Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) covering mining areas located in the municipalities of Narra and Espanola, Palawan.
On July 18, 2003, Olympic entered into an Operating Agreement with Platinum, by virtue of which Platinum was given the exclusive right to control, possess, manage/operate, and conduct mining operations, and to market or dispose mining products on the Toronto Nickel Mine in the Municipality of Narra, with an area of 768 hectares, and the Pulot Nickel Mine in the Municipality of Espanola, covering an area of 1,408 hectares (referred to as subject mining areas), for a period of twenty five years. In return, Platinum would pay Olympic a royalty fee of 2½% of the gross revenues.
Olympic and Platinum applied for, and were subsequently granted the necessary government permits and environmental compliance certificates.
On April 24, 2006, Olympic sent a letter to Platinum, informing the latter of the immediate termination of the Operating Agreement on account of Platinum’s gross violations of its terms, and directing Platinum to immediately surrender possession of the subject mining areas under the Operating Agreement.
Olympic instituted an action for the issuance of an injunctive writ before the RTC of Puerto Princesa against Platinum. In its prayer, Olympic sought to enjoin Platinum from conducting mining operations on the subject mining areas, and also to recover possession thereof. The RTC dismissed Olympic’s complaint.
Olympic then filed two cases with the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) for the revocation of the SSMPs of Platinum, on the ground of Olympic’s termination of the Operating Agreement because of the alleged gross violations thereof by Platinum. This was dismissed and POA for the cancellation of the Operating Agreement and the revocation of
the SSMPs of Platinum. This case was subsequently withdrawn by .
While these two administrative cases were pending, Olympic transferred its applications for mineral agreements, including its rights under the Operating Agreement, to Citinickel via a Deed of , without the knowledge or consent of Platinum. This assignment was thereafter approved by the Regional Director of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB).
After the assignment, Citinickel filed Civil Case No. 06-0185 before the RTC of Parañaque, on June 21, 2006, seeking to invalidate the Operating Agreement based on Platinum’s alleged violation of its terms. This action was also dismissed by the trial court, citing forum shopping and improper venue as among the grounds for dismissal. Citinickel did not bother to appeal this dismissal, opting instead to find other remedies.
Citinickel thereafter filed three administrative cases: PMRB Case No. 002-06, DENR Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) Case No. 8253, and POA Case No. 2006-02-B.
Civil Case No. 4199 involved a complaint for quieting of title, damages, breach of contract, and specific performance filed by Platinum against Olympic before the RTC of Puerto Princesa, Palawan, Branch 95 on June 14, 2006.
Olympic sought the dismissal of Platinum’s Civil Case No. 4199 through a motion to dismiss where Olympic alleged that the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the issues raised in the case. Olympic contended that the case involved a mining dispute requiring the technical expertise of the POA; accordingly, jurisdiction should be with the PO
ISSUE:
Which body has the authority to hear and decide the dispute between Olympic/Citinickel and Platinum, as parties to the operating agreement.
HELD:
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint. It is thus obvious that the complaint falls within the ambit of the RTC’s original jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. Although Section 77 (d) of the Mining Act has transferred to the POA jurisdiction over disputes pending before the Bureau of Mines and the DENR, Section 77 (b) did not adopt the wording of Section 7, paragraphs (a) and (c) of PD No. 1281 so as to include all other forms of contracts – public or private – involving mining rights; Section 77 (b) in relation to Section 3 (ab) of the Mining Act did not include a general catch-all phrase to cover other agreements involving mining rights similar to those in Section 7, paragraphs (a) and (c) of PD No. 1281. Instead, the Mining Act, through the above-quoted Sections 3 (ab) and 26, has limited the jurisdiction of the POA, as successor of the adjudicatory functions of the Bureau of Mines, to mineral agreements between the government and the private contractor. Otherwise stated, while disputes between parties to any mining contract (including operating agreements) may previously fall within the Bureau of Mines’ jurisdiction under Section 7 (a) or (c) of PD No. 1281, it can no longer be so placed now within the authority of the POA to settle under Section 77 (b) of the Mining Law because its jurisdiction has been limited to the resolution of disputes involving public mineral agreements.
The controlling factor in determining venue for cases is the primary objective for which said cases are filed. As we had earlier stated, Platinum’s primary objective in filing the complaint is to protect its interest in the subject mining areas, although it joined its claims of breach of contract, damages, and specific performance in the case. In any event, the Rules of Court allow joinder of causes of action in the RTC, provided one of the causes of action (in this case, the cause of action for quieting of title or interest in real property located in Palawan) falls within the jurisdiction of said court and venue lies therein. In fine, there is absolutely no reason to disturb the CA’s findings that venue was properly laid in the Palawan court.
PICOP RESOURCES, INC., G.R. No. 163509Petitioner,
- versus -
BASE METALS MINERALRESOURCES CORPORATION, and THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD, Respondents.
FACTS:In 1987, the Central Mindanao Mining and
Development Corporation (CMMCI for brevity) entered into a Mines Operating Agreement (Agreement for
brevity) with Banahaw Mining and Development Corporation (Banahaw Mining for brevity) whereby the latter agreed to act as Mine Operator for the exploration, development, and eventual commercial operation of CMMCI’s eighteen (18) mining claims located in Agusan del Sur.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Banahaw Mining filed applications for Mining Lease Contracts over the mining claims with the Bureau of Mines. On April 29, 1988, Banahaw Mining was issued a Mines Temporary Permit authorizing it to extract and dispose of precious minerals found within its mining claims. Upon its expiration, the temporary permit was subsequently renewed thrice by the Bureau of Mines, the last being on June 28, 1991.
Since a portion of Banahaw Mining’s mining claims was located in petitioner PICOP’s logging concession in Agusan del Sur, Banahaw Mining and petitioner PICOP entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, whereby, in mutual recognition of each other’s right to the area concerned, petitioner PICOP allowed Banahaw Mining an access/right of way to its mining claims.
In 1991, Banahaw Mining converted its mining claims to applications for Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA for brevity).
While the MPSA were pending, Banahaw Mining, on December 18, 1996, decided to sell/assign its rights and interests over thirty-seven (37) mining claims in favor of private respondent Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation (Base Metals for brevity). The transfer included mining claims held by Banahaw Mining in its own right as claim owner, as well as those covered by its mining operating agreement with CMMCI.
Upon being informed of the development, CMMCI, as claim owner, immediately approved the assignment made by Banahaw Mining in favor of private respondent Base Metals, thereby recognizing private respondent Base Metals as the new operator of its claims.
On March 10, 1997, private respondent Base Metals amended Banahaw Mining’s pending MPSA applications with the Bureau of Mines to substitute itself as applicant and to submit additional documents in support of the application. Area clearances from the DENR Regional Director and Superintendent of the Agusan Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary were submitted, as required.
On October 7, 1997, private respondent Base Metals’ amended MPSA applications were published in accordance with the requirements of the Mining Act of 1995.
On November 18, 1997, petitioner PICOP filed with the Mines Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB), Caraga Regional Office No. XIII an Adverse Claim and/or Opposition to private respondent Base Metals’ application.
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the MAB, ruling
that the Presidential Warranty of September 25, 1968 issued by
then President Ferdinand E. Marcos merely confirmed the timber
license granted to PICOP and warranted the latter’s peaceful and
adequate possession and enjoyment of its concession areas. It
was only given upon the request of the Board of Investments to
establish the boundaries of PICOP’s timber license agreement.
The Presidential Warranty did not convert PICOP’s timber
license into a contract because it did not create any obligation on
the part of the government in favor of PICOP. Thus, the non-
impairment clause finds no application.
ISSUE: Whether or not the area covered by Base Metals’ MPSA is, by
law, closed to mining activities
Whether or not the Presidential Warranty is a contract protected
by the non-impairment clause of the 1987 Constitution.
HELD:
Anent the first issue, the Court ruled that the area
covered by Base Metals’ MPSA is, by law, not closed to mining
activities.
There is no evidence in this case that the area covered by
Base Metals’ MPSA has been proclaimed as watershed forest
reserves.
Even granting that the area covered by the MPSA is part of
the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve, such does not
necessarily signify that the area is absolutely closed to mining
activities. Contrary to PICOP’s obvious misreading of our
decision in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia, supra, to the effect
that mineral agreements are not allowed in the forest reserve
established under Proclamation 369, the Court in that case
actually ruled that pursuant to PD 463 as amended by PD 1385,
one can acquire mining rights within forest reserves, such as the
Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve, by initially applying for a
permit to prospect with the Bureau of Forest and Development
and subsequently for a permit to explore with the Bureau of
Mines and Geosciences.
Moreover, Sec. 18 RA 7942 allows mining even in
timberland or forestty subject to existing rights and reservations.
Similarly, Sec. 47 of PD 705 permits mining operations in forest
lands which include the public forest, the permanent forest or
forest reserves, and forest reservations
With regard to the second issue, the Court do not subscribe to
PICOP’s argument that the Presidential Warranty dated
September 25, 1968 is a contract protected by the non-
impairment clause of the 1987 Constitution. An examination of
the Presidential Warranty at once reveals that it simply reassures
PICOP of the government’s commitment to uphold the terms and
conditions of its timber license and guarantees PICOP’s peaceful
and adequate possession and enjoyment of the areas which are
the basic sources of raw materials for its wood processing
complex. The warranty covers only the right to cut, collect, and
remove timber in its concession area, and does not extend to the
utilization of other resources, such as mineral resources,
occurring within the concession.
The Presidential Warranty cannot be considered a
contract distinct from PTLA No. 47 and IFMA No. 35. It is
merely a collateral undertaking which cannot amplify PICOP’s
rights under its timber license. Since timber licenses are not
contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
PYRO COPPER MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
- versus -
MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL, Respondents
FACTS:Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under
Philippine laws engaged in the business of mining. On 31 March
2000, petitioner’s Application for Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement (MPSA), identified as APSA-SF-000089, with the
Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB) of the DENR, Regional
Office No. 1, San Fernando City in La Union, for the exploration,
development and commercial utilization of certain pyrite ore and
other mineral deposits in a 4,360.71-hectare land in Dasol,
Pangasinan, was approved and MPSA No. 153-2000-1 was issued
in its favor.
Private respondent is also a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines and engaged in the business of mining. On 12 September 2003, private respondent filed an Application for Exploration Permit with MGB covering the same properties covered by and during the subsistence of APSA-SF-000089 and MPSA No. 153-2000-1 of petitioner. In turn, petitioner filed a Verified Protest/Opposition to the Application for Exploration Permit of the private respondent. It was allegedly filed with the Panel of Arbitrators on 30 August 2005 and was received by the latter on 5 September 2005.
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, a Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.
The MGB issued EP No. 05-001 to private respondent.
Panel of Arbitrators dismissed motu proprio the Verified
Protest/Opposition of petitioner. Petitioner elevated by appeal to
the MAB which was also dismissed.
The case was elevated to the Court of appeals but judgment
was rendered against the petitioner.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the Panel of Arbitrators has jurisdiction to cancel, deny and/or revoke EP No. 05-001 issued by MGB to private respondent.
HELD:
NO. The Panel of Arbitrators has no jurisdiction to cancel, deny and/or revoke EP No. 05-001 issued by MGB to private respondent
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.
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. 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.
G.R. No. L-49109. December 1, 1987
SANTA ROSA MINING COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES JOSE J. LEIDO, JR. AND DIRECTOR OF MINES JUANITO C. FERNANDEZ, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Santa Rosa Mining Company, Inc. (petitioner, for short) is a mining corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. It alleges that it is the holder of fifty (50) valid mining claims situated in Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, acquired under the provisions of the Act of the U.S. Congress dated 1 July 1902 (Philippine Bill of 1902, for short).
On 14 October 1977, Presidential Decree No. 1214 was issued, requiring holders of subsisting and valid patentable mining claims located under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 to file a mining lease application within one (1) year from the approval of the Decree. Petitioner accordingly filed a mining lease application, but "under protest", on 13 October 1978, with a reservation annotated on the back of its application that it is not waiving its rights over its mining claims until the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1214 shall have been passed upon by this Court.
On 10 October 1978, petitioner filed this special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition, alleging that it has no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to protect its
rights (except by said petition). Petitioner assails Presidential Decree
No. 1214 as unconstitutional in that it amounts to a deprivation of
property without due process of law.
Petitioner avers that its fifty (50) mining claims had already been
declared as its own private and exclusive property in final judgments.
The respondents, on the other hand, allege that petitioner has no
standing to file the instant petition as it failed to fully exhaust
administrative remedies.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 1214 is constitutional.
HELD:Presidential Decree No. 1214 is not unconstitutional.
It is a valid exercise of the sovereign power of the State, as owner, over lands of the public domain, of which petitioner's mining claims still form a part, and over the patrimony of the nation, of which mineral deposits are a valuable asset. It may be underscored, in this connection, that the Decree does not cover all mining claims located under the Phil. Bill of 1902, but only those claims over which their locators had failed to obtain a patent. And even then, such locators may still avail of the renewable twenty-five year (25) lease prescribed by Pres. Dec. No. 463, the Mineral Development Resources Decree of 1974.
Presidential Decree No. 1214 is in accord with Sec. 8, Art. XIV of the 1973 Constitution.
Petition is dismissed.
G.R. No. 135190. April 3, 2002
SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. BALITE PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE and others similarly situated; and THE HONORABLE ANTONIO CERILLES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), PROVINCIAL MINING REGULATORY BOARD OF DAVAO (PMRB-Davao), respondents.
FACTS:
The instant case involves a rich tract of mineral land situated in the Agusan-Davao-Surigao
Forest Reserve known as the “Diwalwal Gold Rush Area.” Located at Mt. Diwata in the
municipalities of Monkayo and Cateel in Davao Del Norte, the land has been embroiled in
controversy since the mid-80’s due to the scramble over gold deposits found within its
bowels.
On March 10, 1988, Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper) was granted Exploration
Permit No. 133 (EP No. 133) over 4,491 hectares of land, which included the hotly-
contested Diwalwal area.
\
Not long thereafter, Congress enacted on June 27, 1991 Republic Act No. 7076, or the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act. The law established a People’s Small-Scale Mining Program to be implemented by the Secretary of the DENR and created the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) under the DENR Secretary’s direct supervision and control. The statute also authorized the PMRB to declare and set aside small-scale mining areas subject to review by the DENR Secretary and award mining contracts to small-scale miners under certain conditions.
On December 21, 1991, DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran issued Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 66, declaring 729 hectares of the Diwalwal area as non-forest land open to small-scale mining. The issuance was made pursuant to the powers vested in the
DENR Secretary by Proclamation No. 369, which established the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve.
Subsequently, a petition for the cancellation of EP No. 133 and the admission of a Mineral
Production Sharing Arrangement (MPSA) proposal over Diwalwal was filed before the
DENR Regional Executive Director, docketed as RED Mines