Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MR Holding Vs de Jesus
MR Holding Vs de Jesus
Topic: Jurisdiction
Onephil Mineral Resources, Inc., filed an Exploration Permit Application before Mines and
Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB) but the latter found that its application overlaps Petitioner-
appellant Marcopper’s pending application for Mineral Production Sharing Agreement with the
MGB. Petitioner Appellant notified MGB Regional Director De Jesus that it is closed for mining
applications and requested the latter to ensure that said areas should be excluded from any
application for Exploration Permit. However, an Area Status and Clearance was issued in favor
of Onephil with the notations that the area is open to mining application".
Aggrieved, appellants filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction
(WPI) against MGB Director De Jesus before the RTC Manila.
Appellants contended that De Jesus committed grave abuse of discretion when he accepted and
acted on Onephil's Exploration Permit Application knowing that the land covered by the same
overlaps with San Antonio land.
RTC issued an Order denying appellants' prayer for injunction and set the case for pre-trial.
RESP filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. They
argued that the issues raised are considered mining disputes and thus were under the exclusive
and original jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators.
PET opposed this and argued that respondents' act of processing Onephil’s Exploration Permit
Application was a violation of their rights since the application covered lands and private works
and secondly, the Amended Petition did not involve mining rights but involved a violation of
petitioners' proprietary rights.
RTC issued an order denied motion to dismiss and ruled that it had primary jurisdiction over the
case since it did not involve a mining dispute. It also ruled that the Panel of Arbitrators had no
jurisdiction over the case.
RESP filed a Petition for certiorari before the CA questioning RTC’s order but likewise denied.
RESP filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Court but was denied
failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed an error in dismissing the petition
for certiorari.
After trial on the merits, the RTC, through Acting Presiding Judge (new judge) rendered a
Decision dismissing petitioners' Amended Petition for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC ruled that
the issue raised in the Amended Petition involves a mining dispute and is therefore within the
jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators.
On Appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the Amended Petition. Mining dispute is
within the jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators.
Issues:
a) whether the dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators; YES.
(b) whether the Court already ruled with finality that it is the RTC and not the Panel of
Arbitrators that has jurisdiction over the Amended Petition. NO
The Panel of Arbitrators shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide
disputes involving rights to mining areas and Mineral Agreements, FTAAs or Permits.The Panel
of Arbitrators is mandated to decide on the dispute within 30 days after the case is submitted for
decision. The decision of the Panel of Arbitrators is appealable to the Mines Adjudication Board,
and in turn, the decision of the Mines Adjudication Board is appealable to the Court. It is only
when the dispute is settled with finality, as certified by the Panel of Arbitrators, will the Regional
Director then issue the Exploration Permit.
Petitioners argue that the Court's dismissal of its petition already settled the issue of
jurisdiction. Petitioners' arguments lack merit.
To recall, respondents herein filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, which the
RTC denied. Likewise, RESP’s petition for certiorari before the CA was summarily
dismissed. The summary dismissal by the CA was affirmed by the Court in G.R. No. 188229.
In Machado v. Gatdula, the Court ruled that "whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This defense may be
interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment. Such is understandable, as this
kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to
themselves determine or conveniently set aside."
Further, in Bilag v. Ay-ay, the Court reiterated that "when a court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action x x x [as] any act that it performs
without jurisdiction shall be null and void, and without any binding legal effects."
Here, the RTC did not commit an error in dismissing the Amended Petition. The issue of
jurisdiction may be interposed at any time and may be ruled upon even during appeal or even
after finality of judgment. The RTC, CA, or even the Court cannot conveniently set aside the fact
that the Philippine Mining Act conferred jurisdiction over the dispute involved in the Amended
Petition with the Panel of Arbitrators.