Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > November 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 65021 November 21, 1991 - BENGUET CORP. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 65021. November 21, 1991.]

BENGUET CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. OSCAR L. LEVISTE, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XCVII, Quezon City) and HELEN DIZON-REYES, Respondents.

Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez for Petitioner.

Laurel Law Offices for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. MERCANTILE LAW; MINING LAWS; PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1281; BUREAU OF MINES; WITH JURISDICTIONAL SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER ALL HOLDERS OR APPLICANTS OF MINING LICENSES, PERMITS, LEASES AND/OR OPERATORS THEREOF INSOFAR AS THEIR MINING ACTIVITIES ARE CONCERNED. — Presidential Decree No. 1281 which took effect on January 16, 1978 vests the Bureau of Mines with jurisdictional supervision and control over all holders of mining claims or applicants for and/or grantees of mining licenses, permits, leases and/or operators thereof, including mining service contracts and service contractors insofar as their mining activities are concerned.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WITH QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER TO RESOLVE DISPUTES IN MINING AGREEMENT. — To effectively discharge its task as the Government’s arm in the administration and disposition of mineral resources, Section 7 of P.D. No. 1281 confers upon the Bureau quasi-judicial powers to hear and decide cases involving cancellation and/or enforcement of mining contracts due to the refusal of the claimowner/operator to abide by the terms and conditions thereof." Analyzing the objectives of P.D. 1281, particularly said Section 7 thereof, the Court in Twin Peaks Mining Association, (G.R. No. L-49835, December 18, 1979, 94 SCRA 768) the case relied upon by petitioner, noted that the trend is to make the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter. This observation was reiterated in the more recent case of Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 54305, February 14, 1990, 182 SCRA 166).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, it is not disputed that the subject agreement is a mining contract and private respondent, in seeking a judicial declaration of its nullity, does not wish to abide by its terms and conditions. These elements alone bring the action within the ambit of Section 7 of P.D. 1281. Whatever the basis for the refusal to abide by the contract’s terms and conditions, the basic issue remains one of its cancellation, which is precisely what P.D. No. 1281 places within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Bureau.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, J.:


At issue in this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction is the jurisdiction of the regional trial court (RTC) to take cognizance of an action for annulment of an operations agreement entered into by and between two (2) mining companies.

The action under consideration was commenced by private respondent Helen Dizon-Reyes against herein petitioner Benguet Corporation and Dizon Copper-Silver Mines, Inc. 1 on June 20, 1980 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In her complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-30171, private respondent alleged that she is the claimowner of 11 mining claims all located in the province of Zambales. On January 15, 1967, she executed a Special Power of Attorney constituting her father, Celestino M. Dizon, as her attorney-in-fact with full powers to "transfer, assign and dispose other 11 mining claims." 2

Soon thereafter on January 21, 1967, Celestino M. Dizon, acting as such attorney-in-fact for private respondent and other claim owners, entered into an Agreement, 3 with Dizon Mines whereby the latter was granted the right to explore, develop, exploit and operate the 57 mining claims owned by the claim owners including the 11 claims of private Respondent.

Seven (7) years later, on December 17, 1974, private respondent and the other claim owners executed a Deed of Ratification of Assignment, 4 confirming the assignment, transfer and conveyance unto Dizon Mines and its assigns and successors of the rights to possess, occupy, explore, develop and operate all the aforesaid mining claims.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

On March 1, 1975, or almost three (3) months after the Deed of Ratification was executed, private respondent revoked the Special Power of Attorney of January 15, 1967, stating that "while there is no question that I still have complete and full trust and confidence in the judgment and wisdom of my father, it is not my wish to add any more to his already many and mounting problems." 5 Notice of the revocation was served on Dizon Mines on March 20, 1975 and on Benguet on August 26, 1975.

However, in spite of said notice, on September 6, 1975, Dizon Mines and Benguet entered into an Operations Agreement 6 whereby the former transferred to the latter the possession of the 57 mining claims for the purpose of exploring, developing and operating them for production and marketing of marketable products under the terms and conditions specified therein.

Claiming that the Operations Agreement lacked legal basis by reason of the revocation of Celestino Dizon’s special power of attorney; the obligation imposed by the Agreement of January 21, 1967 on Dizon Mines to itself operate the mines after raising the capital needed therefor, without authority to engage another corporation for this purpose; and the inefficacy of the Deed of Ratification arising from the physiological incapacity of Celestino Dizon to give his consent thereto, private respondent prayed that the Operations Agreement be declared null and void and inoperative insofar as it covers her eleven (11) lode mining claims. In the alternative, private respondent prayed that should the validity of the Operations Agreement be upheld, defendants therein be ordered to observe and comply with the sharing of profits stipulated in the Agreement of January 21, 1967. She further prayed for the award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation as may be proved during the trial.

On August 12, 1980, Benguet filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds: 1) the court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature of the action; 2) the action is barred by prior judgment and laches; 3) the action to declare invalid the Deed of Ratification has prescribed; and 4) the venue of the action was improperly laid. Dizon Mines filed its own motion to dismiss.

After private respondent has filed her consolidated opposition to the motions to dismiss and Benguet, its reply to said consolidated opposition, the trial court issued an Order dated March 26, 1982, denying the motions to dismiss for lack of merit. 7

Its motion for reconsideration having been likewise denied in an Order dated June 20, 1983, 8 petitioner Benguet is now before this Court, reiterating the four (4) grounds stated in its motion to dismiss.

Invoking Section 7 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 1281 and the ruling in Twin Peaks Mining Association v. Navarro and Philex Mining Corp., 9 petitioner contends that the RTC has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 30171 as jurisdiction over actions to cancel mining contracts is vested exclusively in the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences. It likewise adverts to the decision of the Secretary of Natural Resources dated March 17, 1976 on the private respondent’s opposition to the registration of the subject Operations Agreement. It claims that decision, which had become final upon private respondent’s failure to appeal to the Office of the President, constitutes res judicata to the question of the validity of the Operations Agreement. Besides, by failing to take seasonable action, private respondent is guilty of laches in that she has led petitioner Benguet to believe that she was amenable to the decision of the Secretary of Natural Resources and to incur huge expenses in connection with the development of the mining claims.

Moreover, petitioner maintains that the action to annul the Deed of Ratification upon which private respondent thinks the validity of the Operations Agreement necessarily depends, should have been brought within four (4) years from its execution on December 12, 1974. Thus, the complaint filed on June 20, 1980 came too late.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Lastly, petitioner theorizes that since the action to annul the mining contract necessarily involves the recovery of possession of the mining claims which are located in Zambales, venue of the action should have been laid in Zambales.

Private respondent in her Comment, later adopted as her Memorandum, 10 confined her discussion to the issues of jurisdiction and venue, because in her opinion, the other grounds involve questions of facts entailing the presentation of evidence, which is premature and improper in a petition for certiorari. 11

While admitting that the contract sought to be annulled is a mining contract, private respondent nonetheless opines that the action for its annulment does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mines. The reason given is that Section 7 (c) of P.D. 1281 contemplates a mining contract, valid and binding in 11 respects, but either the claimowner or operator refuses to comply with its terms and conditions. In the case at bar, the contract is null and void because of the mental incapacity of the late Celestino Dizon to execute the Deed of Ratification on the validity of which the validity of the Operations Agreement is in turn dependent. Thus, the principal issue in this case is not whether or not the claimowner or operator refuses to comply with the contract’s terms and conditions, but rather the mental capacity of the attorney-in-fact to execute a prior agreement upon which the Operations Agreement is based. It is claimed that the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences is not equipped to determine the question of mental capacity.

Anent the issue of venue, private respondent contends that the case does not affect title to or possession of real property, and therefore, is not a real action but an action in personam, for which venue is laid in the residence of the plaintiff.

We grant the petition. Presidential Decree No. 1281 which took effect on January 16, 1978 vests the Bureau of Mines with jurisdictional supervision and control over all holders of mining claims or applicants for and/or grantees of mining licenses, permits, leases and/or operators thereof, including mining service contracts and service contractors insofar as their mining activities are concerned. 12 To effectively discharge its task as the Government’s arm in the administration and disposition of mineral resources, Section 7 of P.D. No. 1281 confers upon the Bureau quasi-judicial powers as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 7. In addition to its regulatory and adjudicative functions over companies, partnership or persons engaged in mining exploration, development and exploitation, the Bureau of Mines shall have origins and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

"(c) cancellation and/or enforcement of mining contracts due to the refusal of the claimowner/operator to abide by the terms and conditions thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

Analyzing the objectives of P.D. 1281, particularly said Section 7 thereof, the Court in Twin Peaks Mining Association, 13 the case relied upon by petitioner, noted that the trend is to make the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter. This observation was reiterated in the more recent case of Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals. 14

In the case at bar, it is not disputed that the subject agreement is a mining contract and private respondent, in seeking a judicial declaration of its nullity, does not wish to abide by its terms and conditions. These elements alone bring the action within the ambit of Section 7 of P.D. 1281. Whatever the basis for the refusal to abide by the contract’s terms and conditions, the basic issue remains one of its cancellation, which is precisely what P.D. No. 1281 places within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Bureau.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The reason underlying such refusal is indeed an irrelevant matter insofar as jurisdictional competence is concerned, for to make jurisdiction dependent thereon would not only be "ratifying two judicial bodies exercising jurisdiction over an essentially the same subject matter — a situation analogous to split jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice" 15 but also clearly ignoring the object of P.D. 1281 to make the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter.

And if, perchance the law did intend to split jurisdiction, it could have done so by providing exceptions to par. (c), Section 7 of P.D. No. 1281. Not having done so, there can be no justification for restricting or limiting the Bureau’s jurisdiction over "actions for cancellation and/or enforcement of mining contracts due to the refusal of the claimowner/operator to abide by the terms and conditions thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the light of our ruling that the jurisdiction over private respondent’s action to annul the Operations Agreement pertaining to the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences rather than the regional trial court, the question of venue becomes immaterial.

Considering further that the other issues raised by petitioner, namely res judicata, laches and prescription are factual matters which are not only improper in a petition for certiorari but which, more importantly, petitioner failed to substantiate, no ruling on these issues need be made.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of March 26, 1982 and June 20, 1983 are set aside and Civil Case No. Q-30171 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch XCVII, is ordered DISMISSED. This decision is immediately executory. Costs against private Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Hereinafter Benguet and Dizon Mines, for brevity.

2. Rollo, p. 43.

3. Ibid., pp. 46-60.

4. Ibid., pp. 61-66.

5. Ibid., p. 67.

6. Annex "E", Petition, Rollo, pp. 68-118.

7. Annex "A", Petition, Rollo, p. 34.

8. Annex "B", Petition, Rollo, p. 35.

9. G.R. No. L-49835, December 18, 1979, 94 SCRA 768.

10. Manifestation re Memorandum, Rollo, p. 210.

11. Comment, Rollo, p. 184.

12. Section 6, P.D. 1281.

13. Supra.

14. G.R. No. 54305, February 14, 1990, 182 SCRA 166.

15. Atlas Consolidated Mining & Dev’t. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, Ibid., citing Gonzales v. Province of Iloilo, 38 SCRA 209 (1971).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





November-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 32982 November 5, 1991 - CONRADO A. ZARAGOSA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90667 November 5, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • Adm.Matter No. RTJ-90-446 November 7, 1991 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOSE T. BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 75968 November 7, 1991 - ANTONIO BENOLIRAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75028 November 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIOQUINTO C. DE JOYA

  • G.R. No. 78853 November 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROEL PUNZALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86784 November 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CAVITE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93252 November 8, 1991 - RODOLFO T. GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45107 November 11, 1991 - BENEDICTO RAMOS v. ELVIRO L. PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52740 November 12, 1991 - SPS. EUSEBIO ABRIN, ET AL. v. VICENTE R. CAMPOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87590 November 12, 1991 - PURIFICATION R. QUIZON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50433 November 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO BARBA

  • G.R. No. 55346 November 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS SALDIVIA

  • G.R. No. 58281 November 13, 1991 - DIONISIO GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MARCELO GEALONE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60887 November 13, 1991 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72275 November 13, 1991 - PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86738 November 13, 1991 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92541 November 13, 1991 - MA. CARMEN G. AQUINO-SARMIENTO v. MANUEL L. MORATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96094-95 November 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE MAYORAL

  • G.R. No. 101041 November 13, 1991 - JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58879 November 14, 1991 - EXPEDITA LIBREA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62359 November 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BRAGAES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73992 November 14, 1991 - ERNESTO MABAYLAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 93847-48 November 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO TORREVILLAS

  • G.R. No. 75420 November 15, 1991 - KABUSHI KAISHA ISETAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94716 November 15, 1991 - ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS EMPLOYEES v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 27923 November 18, 1991 - MARCELA N. GONZALES v. GUMERSINDO ARCILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 37404 November 18, 1991 - EDUARDO COJUANGCO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57256 November 18, 1991 - RODOLFO B. INALDO, ET AL. v. CECILIO F. BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 64129-31 November 18, 1991 - FERMINA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95850 November 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENEE PAROJINOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101844 November 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 79496 November 19, 1991 - SOLID ENGINEERING & MACHINE WORKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85771 November 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BAYANI DE LOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 91729 November 19, 1991 - MERCEDES ANICETA GARCIA, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR G. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 94787 November 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO URQUIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991 - EDUARDO ARROYO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97793 November 19, 1991 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991 - JOSE F.S. BENGZON JR., ET AL. v. SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39120 November 21, 1991 - APOLONIO MADRONA, SR. v. AVELINO S. ROSAL

  • G.R. No. 39519 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL PINTO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 45037 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE VS. CASTRO-BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 49576 November 21, 1991 - JOSEFINA B. CENAS v. ANTONIO P. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 53476 November 21, 1991 - G & P COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 54135 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO RAFANAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 60388 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTITO BACUS

  • G.R. No. 65021 November 21, 1991 - BENGUET CORP. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE

  • G.R. No. 66497 November 21, 1991 - JUANITO GONZALES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 71145 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. CAPONPON

  • G.R. No. 72990 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BADEO

  • G.R. No. 73747 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS SONG

  • G.R. No. 75111 November 21, 1991 - MARGARITO ALMENDRA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 82789 November 21, 1991 - NARCISO KHO v. MANUEL CAMACHO

  • G.R. No. 84272 November 21, 1991 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84966 November 21, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86785 November 21, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88381-82 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL E. TAPONG

  • G.R. No. 88555 November 21, 1991 - EDUARDO N. ASWAT v. ALEJANDRO GALIDO

  • G.R. No. 90478 November 21, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 91013 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TIAD

  • G.R. No. 91896 November 21, 1991 - AURORA T. AQUINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 93310-12 November 21, 1991 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 93732 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON CARSON

  • G.R. No. 94050 November 21, 1991 - SYLVIA H. BEDIA v. EMILY A. WHITE

  • G.R. No. 94642 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO C. ATILANO

  • G.R. No. 96397 November 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELENCIO "BAROC" MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 63025 November 29, 1991 - RAMON C. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 74697 November 29, 1991 - LINO ALABANZAS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 85714 November 29, 1991 - HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORP. v. COURT ON APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89113 November 29, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO LARDIZABAL

  • G.R. No. 89362 November 29, 1991 - JOSE BARITUA v. SEC. OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 90627 November 29, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON R. LAO

  • G.R. No. 93262 November 29, 1991 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96302 November 29, 1991 - AMBROCIO MUYCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100626 November 29, 1991 - CITY OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS