Case Digest (G.R. No. 163509)
Facts:
PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation, and The Mines Adjudication Board, G.R. No. 163509, December 06, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. The petition challenges the Court of Appeals Decision of November 28, 2003 and its Resolution of May 5, 2004, which denied PICOP’s petition for review and motion for reconsideration.In 1987, Central Mindanao Mining and Development Corporation (CMMCI) entered into a Mines Operating Agreement with Banahaw Mining and Development Corporation, which acted as mine operator over eighteen mining claims in Agusan del Sur. Banahaw obtained temporary mining permits (first issued April 29, 1988 and renewed through June 28, 1991). Part of Banahaw’s claims lay within petitioner PICOP’s timber concession; the two companies executed a Memorandum of Agreement recognizing reciprocal access/right‑of‑way.
Banahaw converted its claims into Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications in 1991. On December 18, 1996 Banahaw assigned thirty‑seven claims to Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation (Base Metals); CMMCI, as claim owner, approved the assignment. Base Metals amended the pending MPSA applications on March 10, 1997 and secured area clearances; publications occurred on October 7, 1997.
On November 18, 1997 PICOP filed an Adverse Claim/Opposition with the MGB Panel of Arbitrators arguing, inter alia, that approval of the MPSA would impair its contractual rights (invoking the Presidential Warranty) and that PICOP’s consent was required. The Panel issued an Order dated December 21, 1998 setting aside Base Metals’ MPSA applications, finding the adverse claim timely and ruling that areas covered by a Presidential Warranty and existing timber licenses/IFMA/PTLA are closed to mining unless the grantee consents and that the assignment lacked PICOP’s consent.
Base Metals filed an appeal with the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) on January 11, 1999. The MAB reversed the Panel and reinstated Base Metals’ MPSA applications subject to compliance with regulatory requirements. PICOP then sought review in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the MAB on November 28, 2003, holding that the Presidential Warranty merely confirmed...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did PICOP improperly raise new issues on appeal, such that they should be excluded from this Court’s review?
- Are the 2,756 hectares subject of Base Metals’ MPSA closed to mining operations except upon PICOP’s written consent (i.e., is PICOP’s consent required before mining may proceed)?
- Is the Presidential Warranty dated September 25, 1968 a contract protected by the non‑impairment clause of the 1987 Constitution, such that Base Metals’ MP...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)