ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. VS.

declared that the petitioners were the rightful In contrast, the private respondents, pray for the
locators and possessors of the said 69 mining claims, affirmance of the trial court's judgment, sustaining
CA
held as invalid the mining claims overlapping the the decisions of Director and Secretary Gozon.
AQUINO, November 7, 1979 same; that the petitioners (Nava group) had
discovered minerals and had validly located the said ISSUE
NATURE 69mining claims, that there was no sufficient basis WON Secretary Gozon acted with grave abuse of
APPEAL from the decision of the Court of Appeals. for Secretary Gozon's finding that the mining claims discretion
of the Martinez and Pabiloña groups were validly
FACTS located. HELD YES
-In Mines Administrative Case No. V-227, Director -The defendants (private respondents-appellees) Ratio In order that the review of the decision of a
Gozon issued an order dated October 5, 1960 filed a motion for reconsideration based on the subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce,
wherein he dismissed the case filed by the ground that CA should have respected the factual the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the
petitioners. In that case, they sought to be declared findings of the Director of Mines and the Secretary of officer whose decision is under review; otherwise,
the rightful and prior locators and possessors of 69 Agriculture and Natural Resources on the theory that there could be no different view or there would be no
mining claims located in Santa Cruz, Zambales. the facts found in administrative decisions cannot be real review of the case.
Director Gozon found that the petitioners did not disturbed on appeal to the courts, citing Republic Act Reasoning The palpably flagrant anomaly of a
discover any mineral nor staked and located mining No. 4388 which amended section 61 of the Mining Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
claims in accordance with law. Also in the order, Law effective June 19, 1965; and several other cases. reviewing his own decision as Director of Mines is a
Director Gozon ruled that the mining claims of the They also prayed that the appeal be dismissed, mockery of administrative justice. The Mining Law,
groups of Gregorio Martinez and Pablo Pabiloña, now meaning that the decisions of the lower court and of Commonwealth Act No. 137, Section 611 provides
the private respondents-appellees, were duly located Director and Secretary Gozon be affirmed. that the decision of the Director of Mines may be
and registered. -Petitioners opposed that motion for reconsideration. appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
-The petitioners appealed from that order to the In their opposition, they reiterated the contention Resources. It contemplates that the Secretary should
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. that Secretary Gozon's decision was void and be different from the Director of mines.
While the appeal was pending, Director Gozon was therefore, the factual findings therein are not binding -Secretary Gozon should have asked his
appointed Secretary of Agriculture and Natural on the courts. undersecretary to preside over the case
Resources and therefore he was the one who decided -same CA 6th Division in second decision of October -Petitioners-appellants were deprived of due process,
the appeal, DANR Case No. 2151, on August 16, 13, 1978 set aside its first decision and granted the meaning fundamental fairness, when Secretary
1963. motion for reconsideration on the ground raised in Gozon reviewed his own decision as Director of
-He ruled that the petitioners had abandoned the petitioners' opposition, namely, that Secretary Mines.
disputed mining claims, while, on the other hand, the Gozon's decision was void because he was
Martinez and Pabiloña groups had validly located the disqualified to review his own decision as Director of Dispositive WHEREFORE, we set aside the order of
said claims. Hence, be dismissed the appeal from his Mines.So CA in its second decision remanded the the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
own decision. case to the Minister of Natural Resources for another dated August 16, 1963 as affirmed by the trial court
-On September 20, 1963, the petitioners filed a review of Director Gozon's decision. This was the as well as the first decision of the Court of Appeals.
complaint in the CFI Zambales, assailing Secretary prayer of the petitioners in their brief but in their We affirm its second decision, returning the case to
Gozon's decision and praying that they be declared opposition to the motion for reconsideration, they the Minister of Natural Resources, with the directive
the prior locators and possessors of the 69 mineral prayed that the 1st CA decision be reinstated. that petitioners' appeal to the Minister be resolved
claims in question. Impleaded as defendants in the -The parties filed motions for reconsideration. The de novo with the least delay as provided for in
case were the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural petitioners in their motion reiterated their prayer that Presidential Decree No. 309. "establishing rules and
Resources. the Director of Mines and the members of the first decision be reinstated. On the other hand, procedures for the speedy disposition or settlement
the Martinez and Pabiloña groups. the private respondents in their motion insisted that of conflicting mining claims".
-CFI: dismissed complaint, held that disqualification the trial court's decision be affirmed on the basis of We reverse the second part of that second decision
of a judge to review his own decision or ruling (Sec. the factual findings of the Director of Mines and the stating that "thereafter, further proceedings will be
1, Rule 137, Rules of Court) does not apply to Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. CA taken in the trial court". That portion is unwarranted
administrative bodies; that there is no provision in denied both motions. because the trial court does not retain any
the Mining Law, disqualifying the Secretary of -Only the petitioners appealed from the 2nd CA
Agriculture and Natural Resources from deciding an decision. While the petitioners (Nava group) in
appeal from a case which he had decided as Director their appellants' brief in the CA they prayed that
1 "SEC. 61. Conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations shall be submitted to the
of Mines; that delicadeza is not a ground for Secretary Gozon's decision be declared void and that
disqualification; that the petitioners did not the case be returned to the Secretary of Agriculture Director of Mines for decision:

seasonably seek to disqualify Secretary Gozon from and Natural Resources for another review of Director "Provided, That the decision or order of the Director of Mines may be appealed to the

deciding their appeal, and that there was no Gozon's order, in their appellants' brief in SC, they Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources within thirty days from the date of its receipt.

evidence that the Secretary acted arbitrarily and with now pray that the 2nd CA decision, referring this case "In case any one of the parties should disagree from the decision or order of the Director of

bias, prejudice, animosity or hostility to the to the Minister of Natural Resources for another Mines or of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the matter may be taken to

petitioners. review, be declared void and that its first decision be the court of competent jurisdiction within thirty days from the receipt of such decision or

-Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (6th affirmed. order; otherwise the said decision or order shall be final and binding upon the parties

Division). CA reversed the judgment of the trial court, concerned." (As amended by Republic Act No. 746 approved on June 18, 1952).*
jurisdiction over the case once it is remanded to the
Minister of Natural Resources. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
Votes Barredo, J., concur but wish to add that the
reason why the undersecretary could ask is because
when the secretary is disqualified, he should be
deemed as absent or incapacitated to ask, hence the
undersecretary should be correspondingly deemed
as the secretary for the purposes of the case in
question. Needless to say, the undersecretary should
ask in such a way as to avoid any indication that he
has been dictated upon actually by the secretary.
Antonio, Santos and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.
Concepcion Jr., J., did not took part.