Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MR Holding Vs de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    monica may ramos
    260 views3 pages
    Mr. Holdings, Inc. v. De Jesus concerns a dispute over jurisdiction regarding an exploration permit application. Onephil Mineral Resources filed an application that overlapped with Marcopper's pending application. Marcopper argued the regional director committed grave abuse of discretion by accepting Onephil's application. The trial court initially denied a motion to dismiss, but later ruled it did not have jurisdiction and that the Panel of Arbitrators did. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that mining disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators. The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and the courts cannot set aside the jurisdiction granted by law to the Panel of

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Mr Holding vs de Jesus

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mr. Holdings, Inc. v. De Jesus concerns a dispute over jurisdiction regarding an exploration permit application. Onephil Mineral Resources filed an application that overlapped with Marcopper's pending application. Marcopper argued the regional director committed grave abuse of discretion by accepting Onephil's application. The trial court initially denied a motion to dismiss, but later ruled it did not have jurisdiction and that the Panel of Arbitrators did. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that mining disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators. The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and the courts cannot set aside the jurisdiction granted by law to the Panel of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    260 views3 pages

    MR Holding Vs de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    monica may ramos
    Mr. Holdings, Inc. v. De Jesus concerns a dispute over jurisdiction regarding an exploration permit application. Onephil Mineral Resources filed an application that overlapped with Marcopper's pending application. Marcopper argued the regional director committed grave abuse of discretion by accepting Onephil's application. The trial court initially denied a motion to dismiss, but later ruled it did not have jurisdiction and that the Panel of Arbitrators did. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that mining disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators. The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and the courts cannot set aside the jurisdiction granted by law to the Panel of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Mr. Holdings, Inc., v. De Jesus, G.R. No.

    217837, September 04, 2019

    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.

    PET’s filed MR but was denied.

    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

    Held: The Petition is denied.

    1. The Panel of Arbitrators has jurisdiction.


    The nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be
    determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the
    complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is
    entitled to all or some of the claims averred since jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the
    theories set up by defendant in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.

    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.

    In filing a petition for mandamus and prohibition — instead of following the procedure outlined


    above — petitioners attempted to circumvent and avoid the jurisdiction of the Panel of
    Arbitrators. The Court cannot allow this legal maneuvering as the material allegations and the
    relief sought by petitioners show that the dispute clearly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of
    the Panel of Arbitrators.
    The RTC and the CA therefore correctly dismissed the Amended Petition.

    2. Issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time.

    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.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED.

    You might also like