G.R. No. 191705 - Basiana Mining Exploration Corp. vs. Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation (BMEC), Basiana Mining Development Corporation (BMDC), and Rodney O. Basiana (collectively, “petitioners”) applied for a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) for nickel and other minerals covering 6,642 hectares in Tubay and Jabonga, Agusan del Norte, docketed as MPSA (XIII)-00014 on July 31, 1997.
BMEC assigned all rights in the MPSA application to Manila Mining Corporation (Manila Mining) in April 2000, which later assigned these rights to SR Metals, Inc. (SRMI) in October 2005. Basiana and SRMI executed a Memorandum of Agreement for mining operations on October 18, 2005.

DENR and Provincial Government issued permits to SRMI and its affiliates to conduct mining activities. SRMI applied for an MPSA covering a 591-hectare area, docketed as APSA-000014-XIII.
In November 2006, the DENR Secretary issued a cease and desist order against the operations citing violations regarding production and utilization limits. The Minerals Development Council also advised an immediate stop to mining activities conducted under small-scale mining claims.
Petitioners filed separate complaints in 2007 against SRMI and others alleging rescission of contract, breach of trust, abuse of rights, damages, and other claims.
The Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) Director recommended approval of SRMI’s APSA application on January 10, 2008. Petitioners filed a protest before the MGB Panel of Arbitrators (MGB-POA) to annul or disapprove the application.

Despite pending protest, the DENR Secretary entered into MPSA No. 261-2008-XIII with SRMI for the development of minerals on a 572.64-hectare area in Tubay.
Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the issuance, asserting:

The CA initially granted the petition, declared MPSA No. 261-2008-XIII null and void, emphasizing:

DENR Secretary lacked authority and jurisdiction to approve SRMI’s application pending the MGB-POA’s resolution.
The issues constituted a dispute over rights within the MGB-POA’s jurisdiction.
The petitioners incorrectly filed a petition for review instead of certiorari; CA treated it as certiorari due to alleged grave abuse of discretion.

SRMI moved for reconsideration, which the CA granted, reversing its prior decision:

The CA held the petition for review could not be treated as certiorari for lack of jurisdictional grounds.
The DENR Secretary’s approval of SRMI’s application was administrative, not quasi-judicial.
The petition was premature and the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
The CA found forum shopping by the petitioners since the MGB-POA protest was still pending.

Petitioners filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA Amended Decision, arguing:

The approval involved the DENR Secretary’s quasi-judicial function and required judicial review.
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies raised legal questions justifying court intervention.
Distinction from Celestial Nickel Mining case relied upon by the CA.

SRMI and the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, maintaining the DENR Secretary acted within authority and alleging forum shopping respectively.

Whether the DENR Secretary’s approval and execution of MPSA No. 261-2008-XIII constitute an exercise of quasi-judicial power subject to judicial review.
Whether the petitioners exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
Whether the petitioners committed forum shopping by filing a petition with the CA despite a pending protest before the MGB Panel of Arbitrators.
The authority of the DENR Secretary vis-à-vis the MGB and courts in approving, canceling, and resolving disputes over mineral agreements under the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.