Title
Brett vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 74223
Decision Date
Nov 27, 1990
Dispute over "MAMAKAR" mining claims; final 1982 decision favoring Brett reinstated after MNR's void reversal; exhaustion of remedies exceptions applied.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 74223)

Petitioner and Respondent Actions

In G.R. No. 74223, petitioner June Prill Brett was granted preferential rights to explore and exploit the mining area by the Director of Mines, but this decision faced appeal and subsequent complications, including a belated reversal by Minister Teodoro Pena. In G.R. No. 77098, the heirs of John Guilles contested the action taken by Minister Ernesto Maceda which reinstated Brett’s rights after the earlier decision was declared null and void.

Administrative Proceedings

On October 6, 1982, the Minister of Natural Resources dismissed the appeal favoring Brett’s rights. However, a subsequent decision on June 25, 1984, declared these rights null and void, citing administrative lapses. Brett contested this decision through a petition for certiorari, asserting abuse of discretion by Minister Pena, leading to legal proceedings that called into question the jurisdiction of administrative officials.

Court of Appeals Decision Overview

The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed both petitions based on procedural grounds. In G.R. No. 74223, it ruled that Brett failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and in G.R. No. 77098, it concluded that there was a pending appeal in the Office of the President, thus rendering the petitions premature.

Legal Principles of Exhaustion of Remedies

The court reiterated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which mandates that individuals must pursue all available administrative options before seeking judicial relief. However, this doctrine is not absolute; exceptions apply, especially when an administrative decision is patently illegal or outside the bounds of jurisdiction.

Review of Minister’s Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court determined that the June 25, 1984 decision by Minister Pena was rendered without proper jurisdiction as it was a reversal of a decision that had already become final. The Minister's actions were characterized as a grave abuse of discretion, validating Brett's decision to seek immediate judicial intervention.

Analysis of the Second Petition

In G.R. No. 77098, the heirs of John Guilles sought review of Minister Maceda's order, which reversed Pena's earlier decision. However, the Court f

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.