Facts:

The case involves a dispute between Apo Cement Corporation (Apocemco) as the petitioner and Mingson Mining Industries Corporation (Mingson) as the respondent, concerning mining claims known as Allied 1 and 2, and Lapulapu 31 and 32. The conflict arose when Apocemco submitted a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) proposal to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on June 19, 1991, seeking to take over the claims held by Luvimin Cebu Mining Corporation (Luvimin), which had allegedly failed to develop the mineral properties. On August 18, 1992, and March 2, 1993, the DENR Regional Office declared the subject mining claims abandoned and open for location, prompting Luvimin to appeal. Mingson contested these declarations, asserting that its own mining claims, specifically Yellow Eagle I to VII, overlapped with the subject claims. Mingson claimed that its Yellow Eagle IV was registered on February 7, 1983, overlapping with Allied 1 and 2, while Yellow Ea...

Facts:

Background of the Dispute

• The controversy arose over the mining claims known as Allied 1 and 2a and Lapulapu 31 and 32a, involving two parties:
• Petitioner: Apo Cement Corporation (Apocemco)
• Respondent: Mingson Mining Industries Corporation (Mingson)
• The dispute originated from the alleged failure of the original locators to develop and put the mineral properties to productive use.

Developments Leading to the Conflict

• On June 19, 1991, Apocemco submitted a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) proposal before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) with the objective of taking over Luvimin Cebu Mining Corporation’s (Luvimin) mining claims.
• Subsequently, the DENR – Central Visayas, Region 7 Office declared on two separate occasions (August 18, 1992, and March 2, 1993) that the subject mining claims were abandoned and open for location to other interested parties.
• Luvimin filed an appeal against these declarations, prompting further challenges.

Conflicting Claims by Mingson

• Mingson contested the declarations by asserting that its own mining claims (specifically the series known as Yellow Eagle I to VII) overlapped with the subject mining claims.
• It was emphasized that:
• The Yellow Eagle IVa claim, registered on February 7, 1983, allegedly overlapped with the Allied 1 and 2a claims.
• The Yellow Eagle IIIa claim, registered on April 12, 1982, allegedly overlapped with the Lapulapu 31 and 32a claims.

DENR Proceedings and Administrative Actions

• In an initial Order dated March 1, 1995, the DENR Regional Office decreed that portions of the subject mining claims be awarded to Mingson, based on the encroachment of its claims.
• Apocemco filed a motion for reconsideration, prompting the DENR Regional Office’s Legal Division to issue a Resolution on September 5, 1995, recommending that the subject claims be awarded to Apocemco, subject to Luvimin’s pending appeal.
• The Regional Director’s Order of September 20, 1995, affirmed the resolution but made the award contingent on the concurrence of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 7 – Panel of Arbitrators (POA) as required by Section 218 of DENR DAO 95-23.
• On May 3, 1996, the POA issued a Decision upholding the September 5 Resolution and the subsequent Order without requiring additional pleadings or scheduling a hearing.

Escalation and Further Appeals

• Mingson, aggrieved by the POA’s Decision, appealed to the DENR Mines Adjudication Board (MAB), alleging that:
• The POA’s Decision was unsupported by the facts and evidence on record.
• Mingson was denied the opportunity to be heard, thereby violating its right to due process.
• In its appeal raised through an August 8, 1996 letter, Mingson highlighted the denial of due process.
• The DENR MAB, in its Decision dated July 31, 2007, granted Mingson’s appeal by reversing and setting aside the POA’s Decision on the ground of failure to afford due process.

Court of Appeals Involvement

• Dissatisfied with the MAB’s ruling, Apocemco elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA).
• On June 13, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision sustaining the MAB’s findings, emphasizing:
• Mingson’s due process rights had not been adequately observed, primarily due to the procedures of DENR DAO 95-23 not being followed.
• Apocemco’s failure to perfect its appeal pursuant to the Rules of Court (specifically the non-service of its petition on the DENR MAB) justified the dismissal of its appeal.
• Apocemco’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated April 23, 2013, leading to the final disposition.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Apocemco’s appeal on the following grounds:

• The failure of the POA to adhere to the due process requirements as mandated by DENR DAO 95-23.
• The non-compliance of Apocemco with the procedural requirements of perfecting its appeal, specifically the failure to serve a copy of its petition on the DENR MAB.

• Whether the denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard (a fundamental right under due process) renders the POA’s decision, and all subsequent rulings, null and void.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)