February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 : February 03, 2009] APEX MINING CO. INC. V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., ET AL.)
[G.R. NO. 152619-20]
(BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., ET AL.)
[G.R. NO. 152870-71]
(THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (CHAIRMAN), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (MEMBER) AND DIRECTOR HORATIO RAMOS (MEMBER) V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP.) :
EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 : February 03, 2009]
APEX MINING CO. INC. V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., ET AL.)
[G.R. NO. 152619-20]
(BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., ET AL.)
[G.R. NO. 152870-71]
(THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (CHAIRMAN), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (MEMBER) AND DIRECTOR HORATIO RAMOS (MEMBER) V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP.)
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 3, 2009
"G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 (Apex Mining Co. Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., et al.)
G.R. No. 152619-20 (Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., et al.)
G.R. No. 152870-71 (The Mines Adjudication Board and Its Members, The Hon. Victor O. Ramos (Chairman), Undersecretary Virgilio Marcelo (Member) and Director Horatio Ramos (Member) v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.)
Before Us is a Motion For Issuance Of A Show Cause Order Why Respondents Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) and Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC) Should Not Be Cited For Contempt filed by respondent Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) on 24 September 2008.
In its motion, SEM avers that the validity of Proclamation No. 297, which segregated 8,100 hectares from a forest reserve and declared the same as mineral reservation, is still pending before the Court. SEM cites a newspaper article, which allegedly quoted an official of the PMDC (the corporate arm of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) as saying that a portion of 8,100-hectare mineral reservation is open for bidding to interested mining investors. It also introduces another newspaper article which published the Invitation To Apply For Eligibility And To Bid for the area which is the subject matter of these consolidated cases. SEM contends that PMDC's purported act of bidding out mining operations within the disputed mineral reservation is an affront to the Court's judicial authority over the instant cases; thus, it asks the Court that the DENR and PMDC be cited for contempt.
While MAB is mentioned by SEM in its motion, the latter, however, fails to impute any contumacious act to the former. Furthermore, in SEM's prayer, MAB is not among those entities that SEM seeks to be cited for contempt.
We deny SEM's motion.
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court, such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or their witnesses during litigation.[1]
There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct contempt and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed when a person is guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.[2] Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that which is committed out of the presence of the court. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice would constitute indirect contempt.[3] Although SEM does not categorically spell it out, it appears that the allegations of SEM against PMDC and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), if true, would fall under indirect contempt.
The proceedings for Indirect Contempt are provided for under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
As may be gleaned above, the charge of indirect contempt can be initiated in two (2) ways only, namely: 1) motu proprio by the court itself; or 2) by filing a verified petition, with full compliance with the requirements therefor.
In the instant recourse, since the contempt proceedings have been initiated by SEM, the second mode of filing an indirect contempt charge is pertinent.
Prior to the amendment of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a mere motion without complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings was tolerated by the courts.[4] At present, Rule 71, Section 4, mandates that except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges, such as this one, shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements for initiatory pleadings.[5] Rigid application of such procedural guidelines is mandatory considering that proceedings against a person alleged to be guilty of contempt are commonly treated as criminal in nature.[6] Thus, in Regalado v. Go,[7] the Court elaborated:
In Oliveros v. Sision,[8] the Court once again stressed that filing of indirect contempt must be initiated through a verified petition and not by mere motion:
In the instant motion, SEM commenced indirect contempt charge against PMDC and DENR through a motion instead of filing a verified petition. Unfortunately, this procedural lapse is fatal and warrants the denial of SEM's motion to cite PMDC and DENR for contempt.
As to SEM's prayer, incorporated in its Motion For Issuance Of A Show Cause Order Why Respondents Mines Adjudication Board(MAB) and Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC) Should Not Be Cited For Contempt, to enjoin PMDC and the DENR from conducting any bidding for the exploration, development and mining operations within the mineral reservation subject matter of these cases, it appears in the records [9] that there was a separate Urgent Motion For The Issuance Of A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) And/Or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by SEM on 27 November 2008, which was also aimed at restraining PMDC and the DENR from conducting any bidding for the same area, and considering that the Urgent Motion For The Issuance Of A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) And/Or Writ of Preliminary Injunction has not been submitted for resolution, as the other parties are still to comment on the same pursuant to the Court's Resolution dated 2 December 2008, said prayer of SEM to restrain PMDC and the DENR from conducting any bidding for the same area is held, in abeyance.
IN VIEW THEREOF, Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation's motion to cite PMDC and DENR for contempt is DENIED. "
"G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 (Apex Mining Co. Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., et al.)
G.R. No. 152619-20 (Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., et al.)
G.R. No. 152870-71 (The Mines Adjudication Board and Its Members, The Hon. Victor O. Ramos (Chairman), Undersecretary Virgilio Marcelo (Member) and Director Horatio Ramos (Member) v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.)
Before Us is a Motion For Issuance Of A Show Cause Order Why Respondents Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) and Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC) Should Not Be Cited For Contempt filed by respondent Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) on 24 September 2008.
In its motion, SEM avers that the validity of Proclamation No. 297, which segregated 8,100 hectares from a forest reserve and declared the same as mineral reservation, is still pending before the Court. SEM cites a newspaper article, which allegedly quoted an official of the PMDC (the corporate arm of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) as saying that a portion of 8,100-hectare mineral reservation is open for bidding to interested mining investors. It also introduces another newspaper article which published the Invitation To Apply For Eligibility And To Bid for the area which is the subject matter of these consolidated cases. SEM contends that PMDC's purported act of bidding out mining operations within the disputed mineral reservation is an affront to the Court's judicial authority over the instant cases; thus, it asks the Court that the DENR and PMDC be cited for contempt.
While MAB is mentioned by SEM in its motion, the latter, however, fails to impute any contumacious act to the former. Furthermore, in SEM's prayer, MAB is not among those entities that SEM seeks to be cited for contempt.
We deny SEM's motion.
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court, such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or their witnesses during litigation.[1]
There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct contempt and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed when a person is guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.[2] Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that which is committed out of the presence of the court. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice would constitute indirect contempt.[3] Although SEM does not categorically spell it out, it appears that the allegations of SEM against PMDC and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), if true, would fall under indirect contempt.
The proceedings for Indirect Contempt are provided for under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
"Section 4. - Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision."
As may be gleaned above, the charge of indirect contempt can be initiated in two (2) ways only, namely: 1) motu proprio by the court itself; or 2) by filing a verified petition, with full compliance with the requirements therefor.
In the instant recourse, since the contempt proceedings have been initiated by SEM, the second mode of filing an indirect contempt charge is pertinent.
Prior to the amendment of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a mere motion without complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings was tolerated by the courts.[4] At present, Rule 71, Section 4, mandates that except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges, such as this one, shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements for initiatory pleadings.[5] Rigid application of such procedural guidelines is mandatory considering that proceedings against a person alleged to be guilty of contempt are commonly treated as criminal in nature.[6] Thus, in Regalado v. Go,[7] the Court elaborated:
It bears to stress that the power to punish for contempt is not limitless. It must be used sparingly with caution, restraint, judiciousness, deliberation, and due regard to the provisions of the law and the constitutional rights of the individual.
The limitations in the exercise of the power to punish for indirect contempt are delineated by the procedural guidelines specified under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Strict compliance with such procedural guidelines is mandatory considering that proceedings against person alleged to be guilty of contempt are commonly treated as criminal in nature.
As explained by Justice Floreaz Regalado. 36 the filing of a verified petition that has complied with the requirements for the filing of initiatory pleading, is mandatory, and thus states:1. This new provision clarifies with a regularity norm the proper procedure for commencing contempt proceedings. While such proceeding has been classified as special civil action under the former Rules, the heterogenous practice tolerated by the courts, has been for any party to file a motion without paying any docket or lawful fees therefore and without complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings, which is now required in the second paragraph of this amended section.
x x x x
Henceforth, except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu propio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements therefore and shall be disposed in accordance with the second paragraph of this section.
In Oliveros v. Sision,[8] the Court once again stressed that filing of indirect contempt must be initiated through a verified petition and not by mere motion:
Charges for indirect contempt are commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings x x x. A mere motion to cite a party in contempt does not conform with the Rules and should not be entertained.
In the instant motion, SEM commenced indirect contempt charge against PMDC and DENR through a motion instead of filing a verified petition. Unfortunately, this procedural lapse is fatal and warrants the denial of SEM's motion to cite PMDC and DENR for contempt.
As to SEM's prayer, incorporated in its Motion For Issuance Of A Show Cause Order Why Respondents Mines Adjudication Board(MAB) and Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC) Should Not Be Cited For Contempt, to enjoin PMDC and the DENR from conducting any bidding for the exploration, development and mining operations within the mineral reservation subject matter of these cases, it appears in the records [9] that there was a separate Urgent Motion For The Issuance Of A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) And/Or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by SEM on 27 November 2008, which was also aimed at restraining PMDC and the DENR from conducting any bidding for the same area, and considering that the Urgent Motion For The Issuance Of A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) And/Or Writ of Preliminary Injunction has not been submitted for resolution, as the other parties are still to comment on the same pursuant to the Court's Resolution dated 2 December 2008, said prayer of SEM to restrain PMDC and the DENR from conducting any bidding for the same area is held, in abeyance.
IN VIEW THEREOF, Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation's motion to cite PMDC and DENR for contempt is DENIED. "
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Quinio v. Com of Appeals, 390 Phil. 852, 859 (2000).
[2] Barredo-Fuentes v, Albamacin, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1587, 15 April 2005, 456 SCRA 120, 130-131.
[3] Id. at 131.
[4] Nedia v. Lavina, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1957, 26 September 2005, 471 SCRA 10, 17.
[5] Id.
[6] Regalado v. Go, G.R. No. 167988, 6 February 2007. 515 SCRA 616, 632-633.
[7] Id.
[8] A.M. No. RTJ-07-2050, 27 June 2007, 525 SCRA 795, 803.
[9] Rollo G.R.No. 152613, pp. 1035-1038.
