Case Digest (G.R. No. 195580) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp., Tesoro Mining and Development, Inc., and McArthur Mining, Inc. vs. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. (G.R. No. 195580, April 21, 2014), respondent Redmont discovered in December 2006 that petitioners held pending Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications over areas in Palawan where it intended to explore. On January 2, 2007, Redmont filed three petitions before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Panel of Arbitrators (POA) alleging that petitioners were effectively controlled by MBMI Resources, Inc., a 100% Canadian corporation, and thus disqualified as “qualified persons” under Section 3(aq) of Republic Act No. 7942 (the Philippine Mining Act of 1995). The POA, in a December 14, 2007 resolution, declared petitioners’ MPSAs null and void. Petitioners appealed to the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB), which on September 10, 2008 reversed the POA’s finding for lack of jurisdiction over the nationality iss Case Digest (G.R. No. 195580) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Applications
- Respondent Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. (Redmont) sought exploration/mining in Palawan, only to learn that petitioners Narra Nickel Mining & Development Corp. (Narra), Tesoro Mining & Development, Inc. (Tesoro), and McArthur Mining, Inc. (McArthur) held pending Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications (originally filed by Sara Marie Mining, Inc. (SMMI), Madridejos Mining Corp. (MMC), Patricia Louise Mining & Development Corp. (PLMDC)).
- Petitioners transferred/assigned their MPSAs and concurrently applied for Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs).
- Procedural History
- January 2007 – Redmont filed before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators (POA) three petitions to deny the MPSAs of Narra (MPSA-IV-1-12), Tesoro (AMA-IVB-154), and McArthur (AMA-IVB-153), alleging all were >40% foreign-owned and thus unqualified under RA 7942.
- December 2007 – POA held petitioners disqualified, declared their MPSAs null; February 2008 – POA denied reconsideration.
- Petitioners appealed to the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB); September 2008 – MAB reversed POA, dismissed Redmont’s petitions for lack of POA jurisdiction over nationality questions.
- In parallel, Redmont filed: (a) a complaint with the SEC to revoke registration of petitioners for being “foreign-controlled,” (b) an injunction suit in the RTC to stay MAB proceedings, (c) a petition to the Office of the President (OP) to cancel petitioners’ FTAAs.
- October 2010 – Court of Appeals (CA), Seventh Division, reversed MAB: upheld POA’s disqualification of petitioners as foreign, recommended DENR Secretary reject their MPSAs; February 2011 – CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- April 2014 – Supreme Court, Third Division, rendered the assailed decision in G.R. No. 195580.
Issues:
- Mootness – Have petitioners’ FTAAs rendered Redmont’s challenge to their MPSAs academic?
- Nationality Test – Which test (control vs. grandfather rule) applies in determining petitioners’ qualification under the 60% Filipino-equity requirement?
- POA Jurisdiction – Does Sec. 77, RA 7942 empower POA to determine corporate nationality and disqualify MPSA applicants?
- Forum Shopping – Did Redmont’s resort to multiple tribunals for the same relief constitute willful forum shopping?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)