June 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 185630 : June 01, 2011]
ERICH PITELAN, PETITIONER V. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION AND THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (MAB-DENR), RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 185630: ERICH PITELAN, petitioner v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION and the MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (MAB-DENR), respondents.
This resolves the petition for review of the 12 December 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP NO. 91837. The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition of petitioner Erich Pitelan (Pitelan) primarily for being a wrong remedy. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration.
The facts as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows:
Sometime in 1983, Philex Mining Corporation (Philex) started operating and maintaining Tailings Pond No. 03 (TP3) located in sitios Balog, and Talnag, Barangay Ampucao, Itogon, Benguet. Philex compensated the surface claimants within the 610 meters elevation.
In 1999, Pitelan constructed two houses over an area also being used by Philex as TP3 located in Sydwing, Ampucao, Itogon, Benguet.
On 6 December 1999, Philex sent a letter to Pitelan to stop introducing improvements in the area. Philex also wrote a separate letter to the Regional Director of Mines and Geosciences Bureau, DENR-CAR to investigate Pitelan�s construction. The controversy was referred subsequently to the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) Panel of Arbitrators (Panel).
On 11 April 2000, Philex filed a Complaint with the Panel. It alleged that the area within which its TP3 was located was covered by a patentable mining claim indicating that the area was a mineral land and that it was the lawful possessor of said area. It pleaded that Pitelan be declared a builder in bad faith, and that he be ordered to demolish the improvements he introduced on the subject property.
Pitelan filed his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim. He countered that he owned the subject property as well as the improvements found thereon. By way of counterclaim, he prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees.
On 1 April 2002, the Panel rendered judgment against Philex. It concluded that Philex failed to adduce substantial evidence that Pitelan was a builder in bad faith.
Philex filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Panel.
Philex appealed to the MAB-DENR, which reversed the judgment of the Panel. The MAB was convinced that Pitelan was not an occupant of the subject property considering that the other occupants within the TP3 were compensated and that he was a builder in bad faith because he introduced improvement on the subject property only after TP3 was built in 1996.
Pitelan filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the ruling of the MAB.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for being a wrong remedy, and even assuming it was the correct course of action, the Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MAB. The Court of Appeals affirmed the MAB's finding that Pitelan was a builder in bad faith and thus, not entitled to compensation.
Hence, this petition.
The sole issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the certiorari petition of Pitelan.
We deny the petition.
First, Pitelan resorted mistakenly to a special civil action for certiorari in challenging the decision of the MAB. The proper remedy in challenging the MAB's decision is an appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This has been settled in Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation,[2] where the Court held that "decisions and final orders of the Mines Adjudication Board are appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Although not expressly included in the Rule, the MAB is unquestionably a quasi-judicial, agency and stands in the same category as those enumerated in its provisions."
Second, assuming Pitelan availed of the correct remedy, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MAB in ruling in favor of Philex. Contrary to Pitelan�s claim, Philex posted a surety bond in filing the appeal with the MAB-DENR.
In addition, the Court of Appeals adopted the following findings of the on the issue of whether Pitelan was a builder in bad faith:
x x x
This Board is inclined to believe the allegation of Philex that Erich Pitelan entered the premises of TP3 only after TP3 was constructed and only after the occupants within TP3 were compensated. This is so because Erich Pitelan was not a signatory to the Agreement executed by and between Philex and the occupants of TP3 wherein it was agreed that Philex compensates the occupants and that the latter shall no longer do acts of disturbance within the area of TP3. This fact implies that Erich Pitelan was not an actual occupant of TP3. So that not being an occupant therein, Erich Pitelan has no right to ask for any form of compensation from Philex.
Noteworthy to mention also is that the improvements shown, as part of the records of the case, were newly constructed houses of Erich Pitelan. This shows with more emphasis that Erich Pitelan had introduced the improvements only after TP3 was constructed in 1996.
xxx[3]
Notably, Pitelan submitted tax declarations covering the subject property for the year 1999 only. This underscores the fact that Pitelan introduced the improvements on the subject property long after TP3 was constructed in 1996, which clearly indicates that Pitelan was not an actual occupant within the area of TP3. As such, Pitelan is not entitled to compensation from Philex.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the decision of the MAB cannot be characterized as "whimsical, arbitrary or capricious,� warranting the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Moreover, even if the MAB's decision was erroneous, "such error would be merely deemed as an error of judgment that xxx cannot be remedied by certiorari." A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[4] An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal, not by a petition for certiorari.[5]
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the 12 December 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91837.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring.[2] 435 Phil. 836, 838 (2002).
[3] Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[4] Julie�s Franchise Corporation v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 180988, 28 August 2009, 597 SCRA 463, 473.
[5] Republic v. Francisco, G.R. No. 163089, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 377, 394-395.