Case Digest (G.R. No. 149638)
Facts:
Moncayo Integrated Small-Scale Miners Association, Inc. (MISSMA) v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., G.R. No. 149638; and Hon. Antonio H. Cerilles v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation and Balite Integrated Small-Scale Mining Corp., G.R. No. 149916, December 10, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The controversy arises from the Diwalwal (Mt. Diwata) gold‑rush area. In the 1980s Marcopper obtained a prospecting permit and, later, an exploration permit (EP 133) covering some 4,941 hectares that included the disputed 729‑hectare portion. Marcopper assigned EP 133 to Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SMGMC) on February 16, 1994. In 1995 SMGMC applied for a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA No. 128) over the same area; adverse claims followed from various small‑scale miner groups including MISSMA, JB Management, BISSMICO and PICOP.
In 1991 the DENR had issued DAO No. 66 declaring 729 hectares of the forest reserve open for small‑scale mining; the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) and later bodies were called to resolve competing claims. A panel of arbitrators in June 1997 validated EP 133 and dismissed adverse claims. The MAB, however, in its January 6, 1998 decision vacated the panel and ordered that areas actually occupied and actively mined by small‑scale miners on or before August 1, 1987 be excluded from SMGMC’s MPSA application, imposed a moratorium on mining until legal requisites and environmental safeguards were complied with, and encouraged negotiation among parties.
Independently, the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) initiated proceedings and, on March 30, 1999, dismissed oppositions and declared the 729 hectares a People’s Small‑Scale Mining Area (PSMA). DENR Secretary Antonio H. Cerilles affirmed the PMRB decision with modifications by a September 20, 1999 decision that delineated two blocks within the 729 hectares and prescribed procedures, relocation of processing, and NRDC involvement. DENR denied reconsideration on February 2, 2000. SMGMC sought relief in the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
The Court of Appeals first denied the petition on July 31, 2000 (citing absence of a Supreme Court injunction and litis pendencia), but, on motions for reconsideration, issued an amended decision on August 27, 2001 annulling the DENR Secretary’s decision for grave abuse of discretion, finding the Secretary’s delineation contravened the MAB decision and the purpose of R.A. No. 7076. MISSMA (G.R. No. 149638) and Secretary Cerilles (G.R. No. 149916) separately filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Subsequent, supervening events developed while these petitions were pending: President Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 297 (November 25, 2002) excluding some 8,100 hectares from Proclamation No. 369 and declaring it a mineral reservation and environmentally critical area; DAO No. 2002‑18 declared an emergency and ordered cessation of mining; Executive Order No. 217 (2003) created a National Task Force Diwalwal; and in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. SMGMC (consolidated G.R. Nos. 152613, 152628, 152619‑20, 152870‑71) this Court, in a June 23, 2006 decision (affirmed by En Banc resolution November 20, 2009), declared EP 133 expired, its assignment to SMGMC void, and DAO No. 66 illegal. Parties and intervenors notified the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside its finding of forum shopping and litis pendencia and proceeding to the merits?
- Did the DENR Secretary exceed the PMRB’s authority in modifying the PMRB decision, or did the Secretary have power to modify it?
- Did the DENR Secretary’s division of the 729 hectares into two areas contravene the MAB decision and the purpose of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)