case_pnoc v. veneracion

7/22/2019 Case_PNOC v. Veneracion

1/3

G.R. No. 129820 November 30, 2006PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION(PNOC-EDC), Petitioner,vs.EMILIANO G. VENERACION, JR., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO,J.:

This case involves the conflicting claims of thepetitioner Philippine National Oil Corporation-Energy Development Corporation and therespondent over the mining rights over Block 159of the Malangas Coal Reservation, Alicia,Zamboanga del Sur.

FACTS

On 31 January 1989, respondent applied with theMines and Geo-Sciences Development Services,

DENR, Region IX, Zamboanga City for aDeclaration of Location (DOL) over Block 159 ofthe Malangas Coal Reservation, situated atBarangays Payongan and Kauswagan, Alicia,Zamboanga del Sur. On 18 May 1989, the Office ofthe Regional Executive Director (RED) of the DENRinformed the respondent that his DOL cannot beregistered since Block 159 was part of theMalangas Coal Reservation, as provided underProclamation No. 284, issued by the President on19 July 1938. With the endorsement of the Officeof Energy Affairs (OEA) and the DENR Secretary,the respondent petitioned the Office of thePresident for the withdrawal of Block 159 fromthe coal reservation and its conversion into amineral reservation.

The petitioner applied for a mineral prospectingpermit over Block 159 (and Blocks 120 and 160)with the OEA, which the latter granted on 4September 1989. The Malangas Coal Reservationwas, at that time, under the administration of theOEA. When it had initially applied for a mineralprospecting permit over lands within the MalangasCoal Reservation, the OEA advised it to obtain thepermission of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences (BMGS).

On 18 October 1991, petitioner submitted to theDENR an application/proposal for a MineralProduction Sharing Agreement (MPSA) over Blocks120, 159 and 160 of the Malangas CoalReservation.On 21 February 1992, the Officer-In-ChargeRegional Technical Director Dario R. Mioza of theMines and Geo-Sciences Developmental Service(MGDS) advised the petitioner to amend its

application for MPSA by excluding Block 159 asthe same is covered by the application of therespondent. Nevertheless, the petitioner did notexclude Block 159 from its MPSA. Records alsoshow that it had not applied for nor was it able toobtain an Exploration Permit from the BMGS overBlock 159.

On 13 April 1992, Presidential Proclamation No.890 was issued, which effectively excluded Block159 from the operation of Proclamation No. 284,and declared Block No. 159 as governmentmineral reservation open for disposition toqualified mining applicants, pursuant to ExecutiveOrder No. 279.

On 26 May 1992, petitioners application for MPSAcovering Coal Block Nos. 120, 159 and 160 wasaccepted for filing. Respondent immediatelyfiled, on 28 May 1992, a protest to thepetitioners inclusion of Block 159 in its

application for MPSA before the RED of the DENROffice in Zamboanga City.

After the parties were heard, the RED, in anOrder, dated 12 April 1993, ruled in favor of therespondent and ordered the petitioner to amendits MPSA by excluding therefrom Block 159. On 18May 1993, petitioner filed a Motion forReconsideration of the Order dated 12 April1993, which the RED denied in an Order dated 5July 1993.

On 30 July 1993, petitioner filed an appeal withthe DENR Secretary questioning the Orders issuedby the RED.

While the case was pending, respondent appliedfor a MPSA. On 31 July 1992, he paid theprocessing fee for a MPSA covering Block 159 andwas able to comply with all other requirements ofthe MPSA application.

On 4 October 1994, the Office of the Secretarydismissed the appeal on the ground thatpetitioners right to appeal had alreadyprescribed. Section 50 of Presidential Decree No.463 provides therefore for a five-day

reglementary period from the receipt of the orderor decision of the Director. Petitioner received itscopy of the assailed Order dated 12 April 1993 on7 May 1993, but filed its Motion forReconsideration only on 18 May 1993, or elevendays after its receipt thereof. Thereafter,petitioner received a copy of the Order dated 5July 1993 on 16 July 1993, but filed its appealonly on 30 July 1993 or nine days after theallowable period to appeal.


2/3

On 25 October 1994, petitioner, through a letteraddressed to the DENR Secretary, sought thereconsideration of the Decision, dated 4 October1994. In a Resolution, dated 21 December 1994,the then DENR Secretary Angel C. Alcala reversedthe Decision, dated 4 October 1994, and gave due

course to the MPSA of the petitioner.

On 1 February 1995, respondent filed a Motionfor Reconsideration of the Resolution, dated 21December 1994. The now DENR Secretary VictorO. Ramos issued an Order, dated 5 August 1996,reversing the Resolution, dated 21 December 1994and reinstating the Decision, dated 4 October1994. It ruled that the Orders issued by the REDhave already become final and executory whenthe petitioner failed to file its appeal five daysafter it had received the Orders. As a result, theDENR Secretary no longer had the jurisdiction toissue the assailed Resolution, dated 21 December

1994. It added that after looking into the meritsof the case, the Orders of the RED were inaccordance with the evidence on record and thepertinent laws on the matter.

On 20 August 1996, petitioner filed a Motion forReconsideration of the Order, dated 5 August1996. On 21 May 1997, the MAB resolved themotion in favor of the respondent and affirmedthe assailed Order, dated 5 August 1996. It tookcognizance of the appeal filed by petitioner, inaccordance with Section 78 of Republic Act No7942, otherwise known as The Philippine MiningAct of 1995. The MAB ruled that the petitionerfiled its appeal beyond the five-day prescriptiveperiod provided under Presidential Decree No.463, which was then the governing law on thematter.

The MAB also decreed that the respondent hadpreferential mining rights over Block 159. It ruledthat the proper procedure with respect to themining rights application over Block 159 when itwas still part of the Malangas Coal Reservationrequired the following: (1) application forprospecting permit with the OEA or other officehaving jurisdiction over said reservation; (2)

application for exploration permit; (3) applicationfor exclusion of the land from such reservation;(4) Presidential Declaration on exclusion asrecommended by the Secretary; and (5)application for Lease thereof with priority givento holder of exploration Permit.

The MAB noted that petitioner did not file for anexploration permit nor applied for the exclusionof Block 159. Moreover, petitioner filed a MPSA on

18 October 1991, or almost six (6) months prior tothe issuance of Proclamation No. 890 excludingBlock 159 from the Malangas Coal Reservation andallowing its disposition. Thus, the application fora MPSA over Block 159, while it was still part of agovernment reservation other than a mineralreservation, was erroneous and improper and

could not have been legally accepted. And, sincethe records show that only one MPSA was filedafter the issuance of Proclamation 890 that ofthe respondents, the preferential right overBlock 159 was acquired by the respondent. TheMAB, nevertheless, pointed out that the saidpreferential right does not necessarily lead to thegranting of the respondents MPSA, but merelyconsists of the right to have his applicationevaluated and the prohibition against acceptingother mining applications over Block 159 pendingthe processing of his MPSA.

ISSUES:

There are two main issues that need to beresolved in this case: (1) whether or not thepetitioner has already lost its right to appeal theREDs Order dated 12 April 1993; and (2) whetheror not the petitioner acquired a preferential righton mining rights over Block 159.

HELD:(kopyahon ko na lang ang sa SCRA)

Administrative Law; Appeals; Appeals fromjudgments and final orders of quasi-judicialbodies are required to be brought to the CA,under the requirements and conditions set forthin Rule 43 of the Rules of CivPro. With theenactment of Republic Act No. 7902, this Courtissued Circular No. 1-95 dated 16 May 1995governing appeals from all quasi-judicial bodies tothe Court of Appeals by petition for review,regardless of the nature of the question raised.Said circular was incorporated in Rule 43 of theRules of Civil Procedure. In addition, this Courtheld in a line of cases that appeals fromjudgments and final orders of quasi-judicialbodies are required to be brought to the Court ofAppeals, under the requirements and conditions

set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of CivilProcedure. Nevertheless, this Court has taken intoaccount the fact that these cases werepromulgated after the petitioner filed this appealon 4 August 1997, and decided to take cognizanceof the present case.


3/3

Natural resurces; mines, by providing a five-dayperiod within which to file an appeal on thedecisions of the Dir. Of Mines and Geo-Sciences,PD 463 unquestionably repealed Section 61 of CA137 - When Presidential Decree No. 463 wasenacted in 1974, Section 50 of the law had clearlyintended to repeal the corresponding provision

found in Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No.137, and to shorten the 30-day period withinwhich to file an appeal from the Decision of theDirector of Mines and Geo-Sciences to five days.Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 137, asamended, provides that: SEC. 61. - Conflicts anddisputes arising out of mining locations shall besubmitted to the Director of Mines for decision:Provided, That the decision or order of theDirector of Mines may be appealed to theSecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resourceswithin thirty days from receipt of such decision ororder. In case any one of the parties shoulddisagree from the decision or order of the

Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,the matter may be taken to the Court of Appealsor the Supreme Court, as the case may be, withinthirty days from the receipt of such decision ororder, otherwise the said decision or order shallbe final and binding upon the parties concerned.x x x. Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 463reads: Sec. 50. Appeals. - Any party not satisfiedwith the decision or order of the Director, may,within five (5) days from receipt thereof, appealto the Minister [now Secretary]. Decisions of theMinister [now Secretary] are likewise appealablewithin five (5) days from receipt thereof by theaffected party to the President whose decisionshall be final and executory.

Petitioners insistence that the 30-dayreglementary period provided by Section 61 ofCommonwealth Act No. 137, as amended, applies,cannot be sustained by this Court. By providing afive-day period within which to file an appeal onthe decisions of the Director of Mines and Geo-Sciences, Presidential Decree No. 463unquestionably repealed Section 61 ofCommonwealth Act No. 137.

Rules of Procedure must be faithfully followed

except only when for persuasive reasons, theymay be relaxed to relieve a litigant of aninjustice not commensurate with his failure tocomply with the prescribed procedure - Petitionerinvokes the judicial policy of allowing appeals,although filed late, when the interest of justiceso requires. Procedural law has its own rationalein the orderly administration of justice, namely,to ensure the effective enforcement ofsubstantive rights by providing for a system that

obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, orwhimsicality in the settlement of disputes.Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfullyfollowed except only when for persuasive reasons,they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of aninjustice not commensurate with his failure tocomply with the prescribed procedure.

Concomitant to a liberal application of the rulesof procedure should be an effort on the part ofthe party invoking liberality to explain his failureto abide by the rules.30 In the instant case,petitioner failed to state any compelling reasonfor not filing its appeal within the mandatedperiod. Instead, the records show that afterfailing to comply with the period within which tofile their motion for reconsideration on time, theyagain failed to file their appeal before the Officeof the DENR Secretary within the time providedby law.

Natural resources, mines: as a general rule,prospecting and exploration of minerals in agovernment reservation is prohibited under Sec.13 of PD 463 - However, the same rule providesan exception involving instances when thegovernment agency concerned allows it. Section13. Areas Closed to Mining Location. Noprospecting and exploration shall be allowed: (a)In military, and other Government reservationsexcept when authorized by the properGovernment agency concerned.Section 8 ofPresidential Decree No. 463 reiterates the ruleand clarifies it further by stating thatprospecting, exploration and exploitation of

minerals on reserved lands other than mineralreservations may be undertaken by the propergovernment agency. As an exception to this rule,qualified persons may undertake the saidprospecting, exploration and exploitation whenthe said agencies cannot undertake them.

Petition denied!

case_pnoc v. veneracion

Documents