861 Phil. 845
CAGUIOA, J:
On 3 May 2007, Onephil Mineral Resources, Inc., (hereafter Onephil) filed an Exploration Permit Application covering a land area of 5,335.0806 hectares in the Municipalities of Sta. Cruz and Boac, Province of Marinduque denominated as EPA-IV-B-177 before the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (hereafter MGB).Subsequent to this, on February 22, 2008, respondents 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.[6]
On the basis of the said application, the MGB, through its Survey Section, projected the technical description of the land area applied for in the Mineral Land Survey Map (MLSM) covering the (MIMAROPA) Region. The MLSM is a map consisting of several cardboards with control numbers each corresponding to specified coordinates. Each cardboard contains boxes with a corresponding area of nine (9) hectares and each individually named box represents both existing and previous mining applications and claims.
The Survey Section of the MGB found that the application of Onephil overlaps several other mining applications or claims. The list of mining applications or claims affected by Onephil's application was forwarded to the Mining Services Division to determine the status of the same. The Mine Management Division of the MGB also requested for a final plotting of Onephil's applied area with the Survey Section. Additionally, recommendations of the Protected Areas Wildlife and Coastal Zone Management Service (PAWCZMS) and the Forest Management Service (FMS) of the DENR were sought by the One-Stop Shop Committee (OSSC) of Region IV-B in order to facilitate the issuance of an Area Status and Clearance.
After the OSSC received the recommendations of the concerned government agencies, the MGB apprised Onephil that its application conflicts with an existing mining lease contract, a mining application and a portion of the Marinduque Wildlife Sanctuary. The MGB, thus, required Onephil to amend its application (EPA-IV-B-177) and exclude the affected areas. In compliance thereto, Onephil submitted its amended application removing the protected areas of the Marinduque Wildlife Sanctuary. Unfortunately, the land area covered by the amended application was still in conflict with several mining applications and/or claims.
On the other hand, petitioner-appellant Marcopper Mining Corporation, the operator of the San Antonio Copper Project (SACP) and the owners of private lands, private works and mining infrastructure and facilities therein with an area of about 4,243 hectares located in the Municipalities of Sta. Cruz and Boac, Marinduque, has a pending application for Mineral Production] Sharing Agreement (MPSA) denominated as AMA IV-B 127, filed on 22 March 2001, for a total area of 763.6650 hectares with the MGB. The said application is a renewal of Marcopper's previous Lode Lease Contracts Nos. V-199 and V-1149.
Aware of Onephil's application, Marcopper sent a letter to respondent-appellee Rolando De Jesus, the Office[r]-In-Charge (OIC) Regional Director, MGB Region IV-B (MIMAROPA) notifying him that the areas covered by the SACP are closed to mining applications and requested the latter to ensure that said areas should be excluded from any application for Exploration Permit, MPSA or x x x any other type of mining application.
On 30 October 2007, Onephil submitted its amended application (for an Exploration Permit) to MGB and, this time, the same showed no conflict with any existing mining applications or claims. As a result, the OSSC issued an Area Status and Clearance in favor of Onephil with the notations from the Lands Management Services (LMS), FMS, PAWCZMS and the MGB Region IV-MIMAROPA. According to the findings of these agencies, the OSSC found that "the applied area is open to mining application".
Despite the issuance of the Area Status and Clearance, Onephil's Exploration Permit Application, to date, is still pending before the MGB.
Meanwhile, on 19 November 2007, Marcopper sought to expand its MPSA AMA IV-B 127 and consequently filed an amended sketch plan. On the same date, Marcopper sent another letter to De Jesus calling again his attention to the fact that the area covered by its MPSA Application No. AMA IV-B 127 are now included in the amended sketch plan covering the entire SACP with a total area of 4,668.3222 hectares. Marcopper reminded De Jesus that it has valid mining rights over the said land under R.A. No. 7942 and "are under the private works" of the SACP. However, the MIMAROPA Area Status report shows that the additional areas are in conflict with several Exploration Permit Applications, including that of Onephil.
In a letter dated 16 November 2007, the MGB sought Onephil's comment to Marcopper's claim. Onephil replied to MGB, stating that at the time it "applied for the application permit the areas [are] clear and open for mining". Finding merit in Onephil's contentions, the MGB rejected Marcopper's claim that the overlapped areas are closed to mining applications. The MGB likewise denied the amendment of Marcopper's MPSA Application No. AMA IV-B 127 as the same conflicts with Onephil's EPA-IV-B-177.
Aggrieved, on 26 November 2007, 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 De Jesus before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The case was docketed as SCA Case No. 07-118343 and raffled by (sic) Branch 52 thereof (hereafter court a quo). 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 SACP land.
Appellants likewise filed an Amended Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus to include in the case respondent-appellee Vicente S. Paragas, CESO III, in his capacity as the Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region IV-B (MIMAROPA) for approving the OSSC's Area Status and Clearance in favor of Onephil.
On 20 December 2007, the court a quo, through Presiding Judge Antonio Rosales issued an Order denying appellants' prayer for injunction and set the case for pre-trial.[5]
Verily, the instant controversy involves both an application for a mineral agreement by petitioners and the exploration permit application by OMRI. Thus, petitioners pray for the exclusion of the conflicting areas in OMRI's Exploration Permit No. EPA-IVB-177. In the same breadth, they seek to include the claimed area in its own MPSA Application No. AMA-IVB-127. Stated differently, this controversy involves the adjudication of petitioner's rights with respect to their MPSA application vis-a-vis OMRI's rights with respect to its EPA.The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision states:
Similarly, since petitioners invoke their supposed ownership and possessory rights over surface lands to defeat OMRI's application, the instant controversy also falls under Section 7(c) of R.A. 7942 because it refers to surface owners, occupants and concessionaires of the real property affected by the mining activities conducted by the claim-holders/concessionaires (entities which are holding mining rights granted by the government).
x x x x
Truth be told, after a thorough evaluation of the records, this Court was convinced of the necessity for technical knowledge on the subject matter before it can competently adjudicate the factual issues in this case. Specifically, during the proceedings, petitioners tried to show that they have mining rights, property and structures over the entirety of the claimed area through their expert witness, Geodetic Engineer Armando E. Quinto. The latter used his specialized knowledge in engineering to determine the metes and bounds of what it (sic) claimed to be the SACP area and, in the process, referred extensively to topological maps and Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates during his testimony. Similarly, respondents presented personnel from the MGB, who used their specialized engineering knowledge and repetitively referred to topological maps and the Mineral Land Survey Map (MLSM) to establish previous and current mining claims. Surely, these circumstances only lead to the conclusion that indeed, a mining dispute exists, and that the Panel of Arbitrators is especially suited to determine the factual issues in this case.[21]
WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing considerations, the Amended Petition is hereby DISMISSED.On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the Amended Petition. The CA ruled that the issue involved in the Amended Petition is the overlap or conflict between Onephil's EPA-IV-B-177 and petitioner Marcopper Mining Corporation's (petitioner Marcopper) MPSA No. AMA-IV-B127 over the land sought to be covered by the SACP.[23] For the CA, the case pertains to factual matters of whether petitioner Marcopper was able to prove the existence of the overlap or conflict between its claimed area and that covered by Onephil's Exploration Permit Application such that the latter need not be approved or that the land covered by petitioner Marcopper's claim be excluded from the grant of Onephil's application.[24] The CA ruled that to resolve the controversy, it would require the application of technological knowledge and experience of mining authorities.[25] This involves a mining dispute, which the CA defined as follows:
SO ORDERED.[22]
The jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators is embodied in x x x Section 77 of R.A. No. 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995), to wit:Further, the CA ruled that petitioners were not entitled to a writ of prohibition and mandamus because they have an adequate remedy under Republic Act No. (RA) 7942[27] or the Philippine Mining Act by filing a complaint with the Panel of Arbitrators in order to determine whether or not there exists an overlap or conflict in petitioner Marcopper's mining claim or application.[28]"SEC. 77. Panel of Arbitrators. — There shall be a panel of arbitrators in the regional office of the Department composed of three (3) members, two (2) of whom must be members of the Philippine Bar in good standing and one [1] licensed mining engineer or a professional in a related field, and duly designated by the Secretary as recommended by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Director. Those designated as members of the panel shall serve as such in addition to their work in the Department without receiving any additional compensation. As much as practicable, said members shall come from the different bureaus of the Department in the region. The presiding officer thereof shall be selected by the drawing of lots. His tenure as presiding officer shall be on a yearly basis. The members of the panel shall perform their duties and obligations in hearing and deciding cases until their designation is withdrawn or revoked by the Secretary. 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:Under the above-quoted provision, mining dispute is a dispute involving (a) rights to mining areas, (b) mineral agreements, Financial and Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAA), or permits, and (c) surface owners, occupants and claimholders/concessionaires. In the case of Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration vs[.] Macrosia, the Supreme Court explained that the phrase "disputes involving rights to mining areas" in Section 77(a) of R.A. No. 7942 refers to any adverse claim, protest, or opposition to an application for mineral agreement or conferment of mining rights, while Sec[tion] 77(b) thereof refers to disputes involving mineral agreements and permits. Parenthetically, the "permit" referred to in Section 77(b) of the [Philippine] Mining Act pertains to exploration permit, quarry permit, and other mining permits recognized in Chapters IV, VIII, and IX of the [Philippine] Mining Act.
(a) Disputes involving rights to mining areas;
(b) Disputes involving mineral agreements or permits;
(c) Disputes involving surface owners, occupants and claimholders/concessionaires[."] x x x
x x x x
Additionally, in the case of Gonzales vs[.] Panel of Arbitrators, the Supreme Court held that the Panel of Arbitrators' jurisdiction is limited only to those mining disputes which raise questions of fact or matters requiring the application of technological knowledge and experience.[26] (Emphasis in the original; citations removed)
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 21 December 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52, in SCA Case No. 07-118343 STANDS.Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but this was denied. Hence, this Petition.
SO ORDERED.[34]
Distilling the foregoing, there are essentially only two issues for the Court's resolution, and they are: (a) whether the dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators; and, (b) whether the Court, in G.R. No. 188229, already ruled with finality that it is the RTC and not the Panel of Arbitrators that has jurisdiction over the Amended Petition.[I.]
xxx THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CASE A QUO IS A MINING DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CLAIMANTS. THE ISSUE IS THE REFUSAL BY RESPONDENTS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 19 OF R.A. NO. 7942, THE MINING LAW OF 1995, THAT CERTAIN MINING AREAS ARE CLOSED TO MINING APPLICATIONS. THIS ISSUE IS PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF A PETITION FOR PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT.[II.]
xxx THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN DEFYING THE RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN G.R. NO. 188229 WHICH UPHELD THE ORDER DATED MAY 23, 2008 OF THEN PRESIDING JUDGE ANTONIO M. ROSALES IN THE CASE A QUO. THE RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN G.R. NO. 188229 IS DEEMED TO BE A DECISION ON THE MERIT[S]. THE ORDER DECLARING THAT THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION AND THAT THE CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE A MINING DISPUTE HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. THE RTC'S ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE DECIDED THE CASE A QUO STRANGELY UNAWARE OF HIS OWN COURT'S PREVIOUS ORDER, AND THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT, UPHOLDING THE RTC'S JURISDICTION.[III.]
xxx THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT ONEPHIL IS NOT A HOLDER OF MINING RIGHTS. BEING A MERE APPLICANT FOR AN EXPLORATION PERMIT, ONEPHIL HAS NOT ACQUIRED MINING RIGHTS.[IV.]
xxx THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT ONEPHIL, BEING A MERE APPLICANT FOR AN EXPLORATION PERMIT, DOES NOT FALL INTO THE CATEGORIES OF A PARTY TO A DISPUTE, THE RESOLUTION OF WHICH IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE MGB PANEL OF ARBITRATORS.
xxx THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT R.A. NO. 7942 PROVIDED PROTECTION TO THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PRIVATE LAND OWNERS WITH PRIVATE WORKS. THAT UNLESS SUCH LAND OWNERS GIVE THEIR CONSENT IN WRITING, THEIR PRIVATE LANDS ARE CLOSED TO MINING APPLICATIONS. IT IS THESE RIGHTS THAT THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROTECTS AND WHICH R.A. NO. 7942 PROVIDED, WHICH RESPONDENTS HAVE VIOLATED BY DECLARING THEIR AREAS OPEN TO MINING APPLICATIONS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.[35] (Emphasis omitted)
(a) | Onephil's Exploration Permit Application EPA-IV-B-177 does not include areas covered by petitioner Marcopper's MPSA application AMA-IVB-127;[41] |
(b) | The area covered by Onephil's EPA-IV-B-177 overlaps with the private lands and private works included in the SACP, but are not included in Marcopper's AMA-IVB-127;[42] and, |
(c) | Marcopper is the owner of the private lands and works which are covered by the area subject of Onephil's EPA-IV-B-177.[43] |
27. That public respondents' unjust and wrongful refusal to block-off and exclude the areas of the San Antonio Copper Project from any EP or MPSA or other mining applications by third parties will open the flood gates to illegal entries and incursions over the said areas in the guise of an (sic) illegally issued EP or MPSA applications, and has caused and is causing grave injustice and irreparable injury to petitioners.
28. Public respondents with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of jurisdiction, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, have indiscriminately and unlawfully accepted, processed and published, and continue to accept, process and publish EPAs of third persons and entities in the areas of the San Antonio Copper Project, and has (sic) unlawfully refused to block-off and exclude the said mining areas from any EPA, MPSA OR FTAA applications, contrary to law and in flagrant violation of the mining rights of petitioners.[44] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; underscoring in the original omitted)
3. After due proceedings, the petition be granted and judgment be rendered:Even as the petition is couched as one for mandamus and prohibition, what petitioners really seek is the denial of Onephil's application and other application for mining rights insofar as they overlap with the private lands over which petitioners claim they have rights. The hair-splitting distinction they make that what they are questioning is the issuance of respondents of the Area Clearance utterly fails to convince the Court. Once more, the material allegations of their Amended Petition and the character of the reliefs they seek indubitably show that the case involves a dispute over the conferment of mining rights to Onephil — which is within the jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators.a) Converting the Writ of Preliminary Injunction into a Permanent Writ of Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction.
b) The privileged writ of prohibition be issued commanding public respondents OIC Regional Director, and Executive Regional Director, respectively, for MGB, Region IV-B (MIMAROPA), their agents, representatives and persons acting in his behalf to desist from accenting, processing, publishing and issuing to third persons and entities whomsoever Exploration Permits (EPs), Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA), or Financial Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) within the boundaries of petitioners' San Antonio Copper Project Area at San Antonio, Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, which areas are closed to mining applications; and,
c) Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding said public respondents, their agents, representatives and persons acting in their behalf to block-off and exclude from any Exploration Permit Application (EPA), or MPSA application, or FTAA applications by third persons or entities the mining areas of the San Antonio Copper Project which are closed to mining applications.[45] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; underscoring in original omitted)
Sec. 77. Panel of Arbitrators. — There shall be a panel of arbitrators in the regional office of the Department composed of three (3) members, two (2) of whom must be members of the Philippine Bar in good standing and one a licensed mining engineer or a professional in a related field, and duly designated by the Secretary as recommended by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Director. Those designated as members of the panel shall serve as such in addition to their work in the Department without receiving any additional compensation. As much as practicable, said members shall come from the different bureaus of the Department in the region. The presiding officer thereof shall be selected by the drawing of lots. His tenure as presiding officer shall be on a yearly basis. The members of the panel shall perform their duties and obligations in hearing and deciding cases until their designation is withdrawn or revoked by the Secretary. 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:The foregoing is reflected in the Philippine Mining Act Implementing Rules and Regulations (Philippine Mining Act IRR),[46] thus:(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.
Section 202. Jurisdiction of Panel of ArbitratorsInterpreting paragraph (a) of Section 77 of the Philippine Mining Act, the Court in Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corp. v. Macroasia Corp. ,[47] held that paragraph (a) of Section 77 of the Mining Act "specifically refer only to those disputes relative to the applications for a mineral agreement or conferment of mining rights."[48]
The Panel of Arbitrators shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide on the following:
- Disputes involving rights to mining areas;
- Disputes involving Mineral Agreements, FTAAs or Permits;
- Disputes involving surface owners, occupants and claimholders/concessionaires[.]
Section 23. Registration of Exploration PermitIn 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.
Upon evaluation that all the terms and conditions and all pertinent requirements are in order and that the subject area has been cleared from any conflict, the Director in case of Mineral Reservation areas or the Regional Director concerned in case of Non-Mineral Reservation areas and upon clearance by the Director shall approve and issue the Exploration Permit. The Permittee shall cause the registration of the same in the Regional Office concerned within fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the written notice and upon payment of the required fees: Provided, That the Permittee shall comply with the required consultation with the Sanggunian concerned pursuant to the pertinent provisions of RA No. 7160, The Local Government Code of 1991, prior to the implementation of the Exploration Work Program.