G.R. No. 127301 - Department of Budget and Management vs. City Government of Cebu

On May 3, 2007, Onephil Mineral Resources, Inc. filed an Exploration Permit Application (EPA-IV-B-177) covering 5,335.0806 hectares in Sta. Cruz and Boac, Marinduque.
The Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB) prepared a Mineral Land Survey Map (MLSM) for the area, which showed that Onephil’s application overlapped with several other mining claims and applications.
The MGB, in coordination with various agencies such as the Protected Areas Wildlife and Coastal Zone Management Service (PAWCZMS) and the Forest Management Service (FMS) of the DENR, initially required Onephil to amend its application to remove the affected areas.
Onephil complied by submitting an amended application; however, conflicts with existing mining applications persisted until further adjustments were made.

Petition-appellant Marcopper Mining Corporation, operator of the San Antonio Copper Project (SACP) and owner of approximately 4,243 hectares of private lands and mining infrastructure in the same municipalities, had its own pending application for a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA No. AMA-IV-B-127) covering 763.6650 hectares.
Marcopper maintained that the private lands and works within its SACP were not subject to the exploration permit process, asserting their exclusion from any mining applications without its written consent.
In October and November 2007, Marcopper sent letters to the MGB’s OIC, emphasizing that the areas subject to its claim were closed and should be excluded from Onephil’s application and other mining applications.

On November 26, 2007, petitioners filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 52, challenging the issuance of an Area Status and Clearance in favor of Onephil despite the overlapping claims.
The RTC initially denied the petition’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and set the case for pre-trial.
Respondents later filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the dispute was a mining dispute proper for resolution by a Panel of Arbitrators, not the RTC. The RTC denied this motion on May 23, 2008, asserting its primary jurisdiction based on the reliefs sought.
Subsequent proceedings included a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) by respondents, which was dismissed on procedural grounds, and an appeal review on certiorari (G.R. Nos. 188229 and 217837) that questioned whether the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators.

The controversy centers on the overlap between Onephil’s Exploration Permit Application and Marcopper’s MPSA, specifically concerning the delineation of areas that allegedly include private lands and works.
Both parties presented expert testimony involving topological maps, GPS coordinates, and technical descriptions to support their respective claims over the mining areas.
Petitioners argued that the dispute involved proprietary rights over private lands, whereas respondents maintained that the issue is inherently a technical mining dispute involving the issuance of mining rights.

Whether the dispute is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators under Section 77 of R.A. No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) or falls under the remedial powers of the RTC through a petition for prohibition and mandamus.

Petitioners contend that the issue arises from the refusal of government officials to exclude certain areas from mining applications, stressing that it involves private property rights under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7942.
Respondents maintain that the proper subject matter is a technical mining dispute that specifically involves the application for an exploration permit, thereby falling under the exclusive competence of the Panel of Arbitrators.

Whether the Court in its prior resolution (G.R. No. 188229) having declared that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case effectively precluded subsequent jurisdictional challenges regarding the mining dispute.

Petitioners argue that the Supreme Court’s resolution in G.R. No. 188229 attained finality and should bar further challenges to the RTC’s jurisdiction over the reliefs sought.
Respondents and the CA, however, emphasize that the issues raised pertain to the technical adjudication of mining rights, which is clearly under the mandate of the Panel of Arbitrators as provided by the Mining Act and its IRR.

Whether Onephil, being only an applicant for an exploration permit and not a holder of mining rights, can be considered a proper party to a dispute reserved for definitive mining rights claim adjudication.

Petitioners argue that Onephil’s status as a mere applicant excludes it from the category of parties involved in disputes requiring the Panel of Arbitrators’ resolution.
Alternatively, the technical nature of the dispute concerning overlapping claims remains the central question, regardless of Onephil’s applicant status.

Whether the protection of private land rights, as guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7942, mandates that consent be obtained from private landowners before mining rights can be conferred, thus rendering the area in dispute closed to mining applications absent such consent.

Petitioners assert that the respondents’ actions in issuing an Area Clearance without securing such consent violate the proprietary rights of private landowners.
Respondents refute this claim by underscoring the procedural and administrative process embedded in the Mining Act for resolving conflicting applications.