Case Digest (G.R. No. 54305)
Facts:
Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation, Biga Copper Mines Exploration Company, Pablo B. Gorosin, Francisco B. Gorosin, Heirs of Pedro B. Gorosin and Vicente T. Garaygay, G.R. No. 54305, February 14, 1990, First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.In June 1973 Atlas entered into operating agreements to explore and operate mining claims owned respectively by the Cuenco‑Velez heirs (twelve claims) and by Biga Copper Mines Exploration Company (thirty‑one claims). Nine of the claims overlapped and became the subject of Mines Administrative Cases Nos. V‑727 and V‑750; the Director of Mines and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources resolved the overlap in favor of Cuenco‑Velez, and the matter proceeded to the Office of the President as O.P. Case No. 0435. While that appeal was pending, Cuenco‑Velez and Biga Copper entered into a compromise agreement under which Biga Copper eventually claimed the nine overlapping claims.
As Atlas developed the Carmen Project it received letters from numerous third parties claiming to be assignees of Biga Copper or of the Biga partners and demanding royalty payments; Cuenco‑Velez likewise purported to have assigned interests to Alejandro Escano, later revoked by Cuenco‑Velez. Atlas alleged that both Biga Copper (and its partners) and Cuenco‑Velez had executed multiple assignments to third parties, producing uncertainty about to whom Atlas should pay royalties.
To resolve the uncertainty Atlas filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch 8, docketed Civil Case No. 16669‑R, naming Biga Copper, the Biga partners, Cuenco‑Velez and numerous assignees as respondents. The amended petition framed seven issues relating to whom Atlas must pay royalties and whether compromises and assignments bind assignees and Atlas.
Respondents moved to dismiss (Jan. 18, 1978) alleging lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. After Presidential Decree No. 1281 became effective January 16, 1978, several defendants filed a supplemental motion to dismiss (Feb. 17, 1978) asserting that PD 1281 vested original and exclusive jurisdiction over mining controversies in the Bureau of Mines, thereby divesting the trial court. The trial court (Judge Regino Hermosisima, Jr.) denied dismissal and ordered answers (May 29, 1978), ruling the petition was for judicial pronouncement on operating agreements and not a mining controversy; it denied a later motion to dismiss on related grounds (Jan. 17, 1979). Some defendants then sought certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed CA‑G.R. No. SP‑09773.
The Court of Appeals (Victoriano, J., with Sison, J., concurring; Nocon, J., separate concurring) held that although the trial court initially had jurisdiction, the petition for declaratory relief presented no justiciable controversy because it necessarily involved the validity and enforcement of operating agreements and deeds of assignment pending before the Bureau of Mines; the CA concluded the trial judge gravely abused his discretion in proceeding and ordered dismissal. Atlas filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. Efifanio A. Anoos and Cuenco‑Velez later sought and were granted leave to intervene before the Supreme Court; Anoos claimed a summary judgment in his favor by the trial court (Feb. 21, 1979) and alleged denial of due process by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court, after giving due course to Atlas’s petition and admitting the interventi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a person who is not a party to a contract file a petition for declaratory relief and seek judicial interpretation of that contract?
- Was the trial court divested of jurisdiction to hear and decide the mining controversy by virtue of Presidential...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)