Case Summary (G.R. No. 220828)
Summary of Proceedings
The Supreme Court reviewed a Petition for Review under Rule 45, challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated December 22, 2014, which overturned the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) Decision dated October 28, 2009, favoring Apex. The CA decision recognized Apex's prior and preferential rights to certain mining applications for mineral production sharing agreements with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Relevant Facts
NDMC, the original holder of the mining claims, failed to repay a loan to the Philippine National Bank (PNB), which led to the foreclosure of its mining rights. Subsequently, various agreements and proclamations facilitated the transfer of NDMC's mining rights to the government and its corporate entities, culminating in the current representation of the PMDC in this matter. Apex filed multiple applications for Mineral Production Sharing Agreements between 1995 and 1996, while NDMC filed a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) application in 1996.
Lower Court Findings
The POA initially ruled in favor of NDMC, granting it preferential rights over certain mining clusters. The MAB later found merit in NDMC’s appeals, reaffirming its rights. However, the CA reversed this finding by granting preference to Apex based on the timing of its applications relative to NDMC's.
Nature of Mining Rights
The Supreme Court clarified that the preferential rights under Republic Act No. 7942, also known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, apply specifically to validated claims and lease applications. The rights entitled holders to enter into mineral agreements, which NDMC, having held valid claims preceding RA 7942's enactment, maintained.
Legal Basis for Decision
The Court maintained that the factual findings of the MAB and its administrative expertise should guide determinations in mining disputes. The MAB’s emphasis on NDMC holding valid mining claims prior to the effectivity of RA 7942 supports NDMC's preferential rights over the contested areas.
Priority of Applications and Regulations
The Court held that the CA erroneously prioritized Apex’s applications over NDMC’s valid claims. The regulations on priority in mining claims stipulate that mining rights must predate the administrative enactments defining the regulatory framework. The absence of timely adverse claims from Apex reinforced NDMC's established rights.
Closure of Mining Areas
It was determined that
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 220828)
Parties and Procedural History
- The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC), petitioned for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- The Petition assails the Decision dated December 22, 2014, and the Resolution dated September 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 133927.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Decision dated October 28, 2009 of the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) which had declared PMDC's predecessor-in-interest, North Davao Mining Corporation (NDMC), to have preferential rights.
- The disputes relate to competing claims for preferential rights to mining areas through applications for mineral production sharing agreements (MPSA) and a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA).
- The main legal issue on appeal is the question of which party, PMDC or Apex Mining Company, Inc., has the prior and preferential rights over the contested mining areas.
Background and Facts
- NDMC originally held various mining lease contracts and published lode lease applications in Compostela Valley.
- NDMC operated the Amacan Copper Project (1982-1992) and Hijo Gold Project (1980-1985).
- NDMC secured a loan from Philippine National Bank (PNB) using its mining properties as collateral but failed to pay, resulting in foreclosure.
- The PNB transferred NDMC's mining claims and rights to the Government in 1987.
- Committee on Privatization (COP) and Asset Privatization Trust (APT) were created in 1986 to manage privatization and assets like NDMC’s mining claims.
- Apex Mining filed three MPSA applications in 1995 and 1996 covering areas in Compostela Valley.
- NDMC filed an FTAA application on January 8, 1996, covering overlapping areas totaling initially 27,058 hectares, later reduced.
- DENR issued a memorandum in 1997 directing closure of mining areas covered by valid mining claims held in trust by APT from new applications.
- Apex filed an Adverse Claim/Protest in 1998 against NDMC's FTAA application, which NDMC opposed.
- Subsequent administrative proceedings occurred at the Panel of Arbitrators (POA) and the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB).
- Apex challenged MAB decisions up to the Court of Appeals.
Administrative Proceedings and Rulings
- The POA grouped the disputed mining claims into six clusters and dismissed Apex’s adverse claim for five clusters but denied NDMC preferential rights for one cluster.
- Both Apex and NDMC filed motions for reconsideration which were denied.
- The MAB ruled in favor of NDMC, declaring its preferential rights over all six clusters.
- Apex’s motion for reconsideration before the MAB was denied, prompting appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- The CA reversed the MAB decision and declared Apex to have prior and preferential rights due to earlier filing of its MPSA applications.
- The CA also held that NDMC abandoned its mining claims by failing to file mineral agreement applications by the statutory deadline, and that the FTAA application was not a mineral agreement under RA 7942.
- The CA ruled that DENR’s 1997 memorandum closing mining areas was not an obstacle to Apex’s applications since they were filed earlier.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether PMDC, as successor-in-interest of NDMC, or Apex has preferential rights over the contested mining areas.
- Whether the factual findings of the administrative agencies (POA and MAB) were properly accorded deference by the courts.
- Whether FTAA applications constitute mineral agreements under RA 7942.
- Whether NDMC’s failure to file a m