Case Digest (G.R. No. 201785)
Facts:
Diamond Drilling Corporation of the Philippines v. Crescent Mining and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 201785; Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Diamond Drilling Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 207360, April 10, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, A. Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from MPSA No. 057-96-CAR, awarded to Crescent Mining and Development Corporation under the Philippine Mining Act (R.A. No. 7942), and from subsequent contractual arrangements and judicial proceedings that culminated in a trial court order directing the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to amend that MPSA to add Diamond Drilling Corporation of the Philippines (DDCP) as a 40% joint contractor.
Chronology: In 1993 Crescent and Pacific Falkon Resources Corporation (PFRC) entered a joint venture agreement (JVA) for the Guinaoang Project. In 1996 the DENR awarded MPSA No. 057-96-CAR to Crescent. By Letter-Agreement dated August 5, 1997, PFRC purportedly acquired a 40% stake in the Project; that Letter-Agreement was recorded at the MGB-CAR. In January 2000 DDCP sued PFRC in the RTC of Makati for collection; after ex parte proceedings an attachment was levied on PFRC’s 40% interest, PFRC was declared in default, and on April 23, 2001 the RTC found PFRC liable to DDCP. Execution followed: a levy, public auction on December 31, 2001, and issuance of a certificate of sale in favor of DDCP, which was registered with the MGB-CAR—making DDCP the equitable buyer at the sheriff’s sale.
In 2008 DDCP asked the MGB to record its 40% interest in the MPSA; then MGB Director Horacio C. Ramos denied registration on the ground that the MPSA was between the State and Crescent and that PFRC had no equity in Crescent; the MGB viewed the JVA/Letter-Agreement as private between corporations and outside DENR’s authority to approve. DDCP then moved in the RTC (June 2, 2011) to direct the DENR Secretary (through the MGB Director) to amend MPSA No. 057-96-CAR to append DDCP as joint contractor with 40% ownership. The DENR/MGB opposed, asserting they were not parties to the collection case, that amendment required mutual agreement and DENR approval, and that DDCP had not shown compliance with statutory requisites.
On August 31, 2011 the RTC (Branch 133) granted DDCP’s motion and ordered the DENR Secretary to amend the MPSA to append DDCP as a 40% joint contractor, subject to nationality and other statutory qualifications. The DENR’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Crescent and the DENR separately filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), producing conflicting results: CA 17th Division (CA-G.R. SP No. 121603) annulled the RTC ord...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Crescent’s resort to certiorari proper?
- Did the trial court exceed its jurisdiction or commit grave abuse by issuing the August 31, 2011 order directing the DENR to amend the MPSA—i.e., was the order issued beyond the reglementary period for executing a decision by motion?
- Can the DENR be bound by and compelled to comply with a trial court order amending an MPSA though it was not a party to the collection case?
- Does the trial court’s order directing amendment of the MPSA contravene the Philippine Mining Act (R.A. No. 7942), its IRR, and the terms of MPSA No. 057-96-CAR—specifically as to transfers/assignments and the Secretary’s approval under Section 30 and Section 46 of the IRR?
- Is the DENR Secretary’s approval of transfers/assignments of mineral agreement rights a discretionary function that a court cannot direct?
- Did DDCP’s acquisition by judicial sale of PFRC’s 40% interest in the Guinaoang Project consti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)