Case Digest (G.R. No. 195580)
Facts:
Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp., Tesoro Mining and Development, Inc., and McArthur Mining, Inc. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp., G.R. No. 195580, January 28, 2015, Supreme Court Special Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (Narra, Tesoro, McArthur) are corporations that applied for Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs); respondent Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. opposed those applications on the ground that the petitioners were effectively foreign-controlled and therefore ineligible under the Constitution and the Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942).The dispute was litigated before administrative and quasi‑judicial bodies and in the courts. Redmont filed petitions before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators (POA) asserting that petitioners were foreign and not entitled to MPSAs; the POA resolved the mining dispute and made findings on nationality. The matter later reached the Mines Adjudication Board and the Court of Appeals, which issued the decision and resolution in CA‑G.R. SP No. 109703 (October 1, 2010 Decision; February 15, 2011 Resolution) that are now in the record; the appellate ruling concluded that petitioners were foreign‑owned and thus not entitled to MPSAs.
Petitioners invoked Rule 45 to seek Supreme Court review; in an April 21, 2014 Decision the Court denied the Rule 45 petition, affirming the appellate courts’ ruling that petitioners, as foreign corporations, could not hold MPSAs because MBMI Resources, Inc. (a 100% Canadian company) effectively owned a controlling interest through multi‑tier corporate shareholdings. Petitioners moved for reconsideration (filed June 5, 2014), arguing among other points that the case was moot because their MPSA applications had been converted into Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) applications and because MBMI had allegedly divested its shares to a Filipino corporation (DMCI). Redmont replied (Sept. 2, 2014) contending mootness was inapplicable (the FTAA was revoked by the Office of the President and factual questions about MBMI’s alleged sale were not for certiorari review). The Court resolved ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the case moot and academic such that the Court should refrain from deciding the nationality and MPSA eligibility questions?
- May the Court apply the Grandfather Rule (stock attribution) together with the Control Test to determine the nationality of corporations seeking rights to exploit mineral resources?
- Did the DENR Panel of Arbitrators have jurisdiction to pass upon the nationality of the petitioners in resolving the m...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)