81 PNOC Energy Development Corp Vs Veneracion 509 SCRA 93 (2006)
81 PNOC Energy Development Corp Vs Veneracion 509 SCRA 93 (2006)
81 PNOC Energy Development Corp Vs Veneracion 509 SCRA 93 (2006)
FIRST DIVISION
- versus -
G. R. No. 129820
P re se n t :
PANG A NIB A N, C. J. ,
Ch a irma n ,
YNA RE S - SA NTI A GO
A UST RI A -MA RTI NE Z,
CA LL E JO , S R. , a nd
CHI CO - NA ZA RIO , JJ
Promulgated:
Executive Director (RED) of the DENR informed the respondent that his DOL
cannot be registered since Block 159 was part of the Malangas Coal
situated
Alicia, Zamboanga del Sur. On 18 May 1989, the Office of the Regional
of the President for the withdrawal of Block 159 from the coal reservation and
its conversion into a mineral reservation.[3]
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Oil
Corporation-Energy
Development
Corporation
and
the
a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated 12 April 1993,[12] which the
RED denied in an Order dated 5 July 1993.[13]
284, and declared Block No. 159 as government mineral reservation open for
[16]
279.[8]
day reglementary period from the receipt of the order or decision of the
Director.[17] Petitioner received its copy of the assailed Order dated 12 April
On 26 May 1992, petitioners application for MPSA covering Coal
1993 on 7 May 1993, but filed its Motion for Reconsideration only on 18 May
Block Nos. 120, 159 and 160 was accepted for filing. [9] Respondent
1993, or eleven days after its receipt thereof. Thereafter, petitioner received
a copy of the Order dated 5 July 1993 on 16 July 1993, but filed its appeal
Block 159 in its application for MPSA before the RED of the DENR Office
only on 30 July 1993 or nine days after the allowable period to appeal.
in Zamboanga City.[10]
On 25 October 1994, petitioner, through a letter addressed to the
DENR Secretary, sought the reconsideration of the Decision, dated 4
After the parties were heard, the RED, in an Order, dated 12 April
1993, ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered the petitioner to amend its
Secretary Angel C. Alcala reversed the Decision, dated 4 October 1994, and
MPSA by excluding therefrom Block 159. [11] On 18 May 1993, petitioner filed
the Malangas Coal Reservation required the following: (1) application for
On 1 February 1995, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration
prospecting permit with the OEA or other office having jurisdiction over said
reservation; (2) application for exploration permit; (3) application for exclusion
as recommended by the Secretary; and (5) application for Lease thereof with
October 1994. It ruled that the Orders issued by the RED have already
become final and executory when the petitioner failed to file its appeal five
days after it had received the Orders. As a result, the DENR Secretary no
The MAB noted that petitioner did not file for an exploration permit
nor applied for the exclusion of Block 159. Moreover, petitioner filed a MPSA
December 1994. It added that after looking into the merits of the case, the
Orders of the RED were in accordance with the evidence on record and the
Proclamation No. 890 excluding Block 159 from the Malangas Coal
Reservation and allowing its disposition. Thus, the application for a MPSA
over Block 159, while it was still part of a government reservation other than
a mineral reservation, was erroneous and improper and could not have been
the Order, dated 5 August 1996. On 21 May 1997, the MAB resolved the
legally accepted. And, since the records show that only one MPSA was filed
motion in favor of the respondent and affirmed the assailed Order, dated 5
preferential right over Block 159 was acquired by the respondent. The MAB,
nevertheless, pointed out that the said preferential right does not necessarily
The Philippine Mining Act of 1995.[23] The MAB ruled that the petitioner filed
lead to the granting of the respondents MPSA, but merely consists of the
its appeal beyond the five-day prescriptive period provided under Presidential
right to have his application evaluated and the prohibition against accepting
Decree No. 463, which was then the governing law on the matter.
other mining applications over Block 159 pending the processing of his
MPSA.
The MAB also decreed that the respondent had preferential mining
rights over Block 159. It ruled that the proper procedure with respect to the
mining rights application over Block 159 when it was still part of
The correct mode of appeal would have been to file a petition for
There are two main issues that need to be resolved in this case: (1)
review under Rule 43, before the Court of Appeals. Petitioners reliance on
whether or not the petitioner has already lost its right to appeal
Section 79 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is misplaced. [24] Republic Act
the REDs Order dated 12 April 1993; and (2) whether or not the petitioner
include:
This Court finds no merit in this Petition.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments,
decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial
Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards
or commissions x x x except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948.
With the enactment of Republic Act No. 7902, this Court issued
Circular No. 1-95 dated 16 May 1995 governing appeals from all quasijudicial bodies to the Court of Appeals by petition for review, regardless of the
nature of the question raised. Said circular was incorporated in Rule 43 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure.[25] In addition, this Court held in a line of cases
that appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial bodies are
required to be brought to the Court of Appeals, under the requirements and
conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[26]
Nevertheless, this Court has taken into account the fact that these cases
were promulgated after the petitioner filed this appeal on 4 August 1997, and
Sec. 50. Appeals. - Any party not satisfied with the decision
or order of the Director, may, within five (5) days from receipt
thereof, appeal to the Minister [now Secretary]. Decisions of
the Minister [now Secretary] are likewise appealable within
five (5) days from receipt thereof by the affected party to the
President whose decision shall be final and executory.
their appeal before the Office of the DENR Secretary within the time provided
by law.
Even if petitioner had not lost its right to appeal, it cannot claim any
mining rights over Block 159 for failure to comply with the legal
requirements. Petitioner applied for an MPSA with the DENR on 18 October
1991, prior to the release of Block 159 from the Malangas Coal Reservation
under Proclamation No. 890 on 13 April 1992. Thus, the provisions on the
acquisition of mining rights within a government reservation other than a
mineral reservation under Presidential Decree No. 463 and the Consolidated
Mines Administrative Order (CMAO) should apply.
Nor can petitioner invoke the doctrine that rules of technicality must
yield to the broader interest of substantial justice. While every litigant must be
given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his
cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an
appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a
jurisdictional problem as it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the
appeal. The right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere
statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with
the provisions of the law.[29]
Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 463 reiterates the rule and clarifies it
further by stating that prospecting, exploration and exploitation of minerals on
reserved lands other than mineral reservations may be undertaken by the
proper government agency. As an exception to this rule, qualified persons
may undertake the said prospecting, exploration and exploitation when the
said agencies cannot undertake them.
Section 8. Prospecting, Exploration and Exploitation
of Minerals in Reserved Lands. Prospecting, exploration
and exploitation of minerals in reserved lands other than
mineral reservations may be undertaken by the proper
government agency. In the event that the said agencies
cannot undertake the prospecting, exploration and
exploitation of minerals in reserved lands, qualified persons
may be permitted to undertake such prospecting, exploration
and exploitation in accordance with the rules and regulations
was probably referring to an exploration permit. [35] The petitioner did not
apply for an exploration permit with the BMGS, nor would the BMGS have
granted petitioner an exploration permit because when petitioner wrote to the
BMGS informing the latter of its intention to enter into an MPSA with the
DENR over Block 159, the BMGS informed the petitioner that the
respondents claim over Block 159 had already preceded that of the
petitioner.[36] The advice given by the BMGS was justified since at that time,
the respondent already had a pending application for the exclusion of Block
159 from the Malangas Coal Reservation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his
MPSA application, without complying with the second, third and fourth
requisites. Since it ignored the sound advice of the OEA and the BMGS, the
government agencies concerned, and stubbornly insisted on its incorrect
procedure, petitioner cannot complain now that its MPSA was revoked for
failure to comply with the legal requirements.
In contrast, the respondent applied for a DOL as early as 30 January
1989. The DENR Regional Office refused to register the respondents DOL
since Block 159 was still part of the Malangas Coal Reservation and advised
the respondent to apply for the exclusion of the area from the reservation.
The respondent followed this advice. The BMGS then treated the
respondents application for a DOL as an application for an exploration permit
and caused a verification report of the area applied for, as provided under
Section 99 of the CMAO.[37] Upon the application of the respondent, the OEA
and thereafter the DENR Secretary endorsed the respondents application for
the exclusion of the area from the reservation. [38] This application was
granted by the President, through Proclamation No. 890, which provided that
the mining rights to Block 159 will be disposed of in accordance with
Executive Order No. 279. On 30 July 1992, respondent filed his MPSA.
[39]
On 12 April 1993, the RED of Zamboanga City ordered that the
respondents MPSA be given due course.[40] Although the respondents
applications may not follow the strict letter of the law, there was substantial
compliance with the requirements of the law. Hence, the respondent was
able to acquire a preferential right on the mining claims over Block 159, as
provided under Section 101 of the CMAO.
W E CO NCUR:
with these requirements, this would not be fatal to his cause since he filed his
AR TE MI O V. PANG AN I B AN
Ch ief Ju st ice
Cha irm an
converted into a mineral reservation, wherein a different set of rules wouldCO NS UE LO YN ARE S - S ANTI AG O
A sso cia t e Ju st ice
apply. The only effect of his failure to comply with the requirements CMAO
M A. AL I CI A AUS TRI A- M AR TI NE Z
A sso cia t e Ju st ice
area involved. In this case, the respondent was the only applicant to the
mining rights over Block 159, apart from the petitioner who was not qualified
for failure to comply with the legal requirements. Proclamation No. 890
specifically
provides
that
Executive
Order
No.
279
should
be
applied. Records indicate that the provisions of Executive Order No. 279
have been complied with.[41]
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
costs.
AR TE MI O V. PANG AN I B AN
Ch ief Ju st ice
SO ORDERED.
MI NI TA V. CHI CO -N AZ ARI O
A sso cia t e Ju st ice
[1]
O. Ramos with
and Horacio C.
Associate
Ramos,
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
Rollo, p. 91.
Records, Folder II, pp. 14-15, 39-40, 41.
Rollo, p. 200.
Id. at 41 and 46.
Id. at 91.
Records, Folder V, p. 43.
Executive Order 279, Authorizing the Secretary of Environment
and National Resources 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, 25 July 1987.
Rollo, p. 92.
Id.
Id. at 93.
Id. at 94-98.
Id. at 99-100.
Id. at 101-112.
Id. at 200.
Id. at 114-118.
Sec. 50. Appeals. - Any party not satisfied with the decision or
order of the Director may, within five (5)days from receipt thereof,
appeal to the Minister (now Secretary). Decisions of the Minister
(now Secretary) are likewise appealablewithin five (5) days from
receipt thereof by the affected party to the President of
the Philippines whose decision shall be final and executory.
Rollo, pp. 120-134.
Id. at 135-150.
Id. at 152-164.
Id. at 181-186.
Id. at 199-205.
SEC. 78. Appellate Jurisdiction. The decision or order of the
panel of arbitrators may be appealed by the party not satisfied
thereto to the Mines Adjudication Board within fifteen (15) days from
receipt thereof which must decide the case within thirty (30) days
from submission thereof for decision.
Rollo, p. 5.
The last paragraph of Section 79 of Republic Act No. 7942, The
Philippine Mining Act of 1995 provides that:
xxxx
A petition for review by certorari and
question of law may be filed by the aggrieved party
with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the order or decision of the Board.
[25]
[33]
d)
Proof of financial capability and
technical competence to undertake exploration; and
e)
Geologic support of prospecting
activities and findings in the area prepared by a licensed
geologist or mining engineer.
SEC. 99. Approval of Exploration Permit -- The Director shall
thereafter cause a geologic verification of the area applied for and
upon finding that the same contains minerals, he may issue an
exploration permit. He may issue an exploration permit on the form
(BM Form No. MRD-25) hereto attached as Appendix U, and made
part of these Regulations, for a period of two (2) years extendable for
the same period.
SEC. 101. Exclusion of the Area for Mining Purposes -- If the
result of the exploration reveals the presence of a commercial
deposit, the permittee may apply with the Bureau of Mines for the
exclusion of the area from the reservation which shall be supported
by:
a)
Complete geologic report on the area
prepared by a licensed geologist;
b)
Project study prepared by a licensed
mining engineer justifying the development of the area;
c)
Financial report of all expenditures
incurred duly certified by a certified public accountant; and
d)
Boundary survey of the area by a
deputy geodetic engineer complete with survey returns and
map on prescribed form (BM Form No. MRD-18).
Upon receipt of the application, the Director shall conduct a
verification of the findings reported in the project study and valuation
of the area at the expense of the applicant.
If after verifications the Director finds the application
meritorious, he shall forward to the Secretary for consideration who
may recommend to the President the exclusion of the area from the
reservation.
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]