Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > June 2011 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. :




SECOND DIVISION

[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.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 June 2011 which reads as follows:

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.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. 11-6-03-CTA : June 28, 2011] RE: REQUEST OF PRESIDING JUSTICE ERNESTO D. ACOSTA AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE LOVELL R. BAUTISTA FOR PERMISSION TO ATTEND THE 2ND ANNUAL ASEAN TAX CONFERENCE 2011 AT PATTAYA, CHONBURI PROVINCE, BANGKOK, THAILAND FROM AUGUST 22-25, 2011

  • [A.M. No. 13974-Ret : June 28, 2011] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS, JUSTICE RODOLFO A. NOCON [NATIVIDAD G. NOCON]

  • [A.M. No. 10-11-130-MTC : June 28, 2011] RE: REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD SALARIES OF MR. MATURAN D. MAGDOBOY, CLERK OF COURT, MTC, MATI, DAVAO ORIENTAL

  • [A.M. No. 13973-Ret : June 28, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER A.M. NO. JBC-005 AND SURVIVORSHIP BENEFITS UNDER R.A. 8291, ATTY. J. CONRADO P. CASTRO, JBC, SUPREME COURT

  • [A.M. No. 13965-Ret. : June 28, 2011] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS, JUSTICE VICENTE G. ERICTA [MRS. LUCENA D. ERICTA]

  • [A.M. No. 13953-Ret. : June 28, 2011] RE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SERVICE BEYOND COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AGE OF 65 OR UNTIL AUGUST 12, 2012, MR. GEPTE M. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, RTC, BRANCH 116, PASAY CITY

  • [A.M. No. 11-5-47-MCTC : June 28, 2011] RE: REQUEST OF BENJAMIN O. QUINTO, JR., UTILITY WORKER 1, MCTC, JABONGA-KITCHARAO, AGUSAN DEL NORTE, FOR EXTENSION OF HIS SERVICE

  • [G.R. No. 196835 : June 28, 2011] TRIBAL COALITION OF MINDANAO (TRICOM), INC., DAGING MANOBO SECTORAL TRIBAL COUNCIL, ET AL. V. TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION, PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION, ORIENTAL SYNERGY MINING CORP., ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 165381 : June 27, 2011] NELSON A. CULILI, PETITIONER, V. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186394 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. REYNALDO GALVEZ Y PEÑAFLOR

  • [G.R. No. 177268 : June 22, 2011] JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES V. MA. CRISTINA A. VISTAN

  • [G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011] ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. PLACER DOME, INC.

  • [A.M. No. 10-9-278-RTC : June 21, 2011] RE: REQUEST OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO JR., RTC, BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, TO BE TRANSFERRED TO REGION I, PREFERABLY IN PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. JBC-023 : June 21, 2011] RE: PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES FROM MAY TO JULY 2011 AND SCHEDULE FOR THE PROCESSING OF EXISTING AND FORTHCOMING VACANCIES IN THE APPELLATE COURTS AND IN THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

  • [A.M. No. 11-5-91-RTC : June 21, 2011] RE: LETTER OF ATTY. PERCIVAL S. CAÑA DECLINING HIS APPOINTMENT AS JUDGE OF RTC, BR. 17, PALOMPON, LEYTE

  • [G.R. No. 156636 : June 15, 2011] LUTHER S. NERI AND REYNALDO B. TATOY, PETITIONERS, V. OLIVEROS DIGDIGAN JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186384 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DOLORES SAN AGUSTIN Y MANINGAS

  • [G.R. No. 185846 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LUISITO DE PEDRO Y TORRES

  • [G.R. No. 195778 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RUDY FLORES Y TOLENTINO

  • [G.R. No. 195529 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DOMINGO QUISING ALIAS "INGGO"

  • [G.R. Nos. 193937-38 : June 15, 2011] STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EQUITABLE PCIBANK, INC. AND ATTY. SANTIAGO T. GABIONZA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 195157 : June 15, 2011] OSCAR F. GABUYA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [A.M. No. OCA-IPI 08-125-CA-J : June 14, 2011] ABELARDO SILVERIO V. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RAMON BATO, JR., COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 183697 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ANGELO MANIAGO

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2938 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3437-P] : June 13, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JESSICA O. ORBON, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, PASIG CITY

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2938 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3437-P] : June 13, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JESSICA O. ORBON, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, PASIG CITY

  • [G.R. 175780 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RONALD RIVAS Y GARCIA

  • [G.R. No. 196209 : June 08, 2011] CARINA L. DACER, SABINA DACER-REYES, EMILY DACER-HUNGERFORD, AND AMPARO DACER-HENSON V. PANFILO M. LACSON

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2265 : June 08, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. LIEZEL L. BAUTISTA

  • [G.R. No. 195240 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAMON ALBA Y BUROG

  • [G.R. No. 194837 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAMON ESGUERRA Y SANTOS

  • [G.R. No. 186124 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. FIDEL REAL Y VILLENA

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2897 : June 08, 2011] LOLITA RAYALA-VELASCO V. MA. CONSUELO JOIE A. FAJARDO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 93, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA

  • [G.R. No. 191238 : June 08, 2011] ADERITO Z. YUJUICO, BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA, AND DOLNEY S. SUMBILLA V. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2786 : June 08, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. MA. LOURDES A. LAQUINDANUM, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 10-1-29-RTC - RE: ALLEGED TAMPERING OF DAILY TIME RECORDS BY MA. LOURDES A. LAQUINDANUM, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA

  • [G.R. No. 179000 : June 08, 2011] THE MANILA SOUTHWOODS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. V. ROBERTO MANABAT

  • [G.R. Nos. 180880-81 : June 07, 2011] KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD, INC. V. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION) [G.R. NOS. 180896-97 : JUNE 7, 2011] PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION V. KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD, INC.

  • [A.M. No. 09-11-187-MTC : June 07, 2011] REQUEST OF JUDGE MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN, MTC-SAN MATEO, RIZAL FOR RELIEF FROM PROPERTY AND RECORDS ACCOUNTABILITIES WHICH WERE TOTALLY DESTROYED BY TYPHOON "ONDOY"

  • [A.M. No. 13950-Ret. : June 07, 2011] SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER R.A. 9946 OF JUSTICE LINO M. PATAJO, SUPREME COURT [MRS. CRISTETA T. PATAJO]

  • [A.M. No. 13955-Ret. : June 07, 2011] SURVIVORS PENSION BENEFITS, HON. ANTONIO P. BARREDO [MRS. TERESITA A. BARREDO]

  • [A.M. No. 13872-Ret. : June 07, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP BENEFITS UNDER RA 9946 OF MRS. LOURDES C. SUNDIAM, WIDOW OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE EDGARDO F. SUNDIAM

  • [A.M. No. 13944-Ret. : June 07, 2011] OPTIONAL RETIREMENT UNDER R.A. 7699, VICENTA N. GUMIA, OFFICE OF DCA VILLASOR, OCA-SC

  • [A.M. No. 13963-Ret. : June 07, 2011] APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER R.A. 9946 OF MRS. MINERVA B. REYES, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. ANDRES C. REYES, SR., FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE OF COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 179811 : June 06, 2011] FAMA REALTY, INC. AND FELIX ASSAD V. SPS. GERARDO & CORAZON TRINIDAD

  • [G.R. No. 181484 : June 06, 2011] RUBEN DE LOS RIOS V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 195306 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARILYN ISIP Y BIE, JOEL ISIP Y VITE, AND ISABEL APOLONIO Y PACULDAR

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2933 : June 06, 2011] JUDGE CELSO BAGUIO V. JOCELYN P. LACUÑA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, GAPAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA

  • [G.R. No. 185556 : June 06, 2011] SUPREME STEEL PIPE CORPORATION V. NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION

  • [G.R. No. 195237 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. AMALIA REGATSUELO

  • [G.R. No. 194609 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NYMPHA HUELAR Y FRINCELLO AND SONNY SANTILLAN Y DE ASIS

  • [G.R. No. 194722 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSE MINA

  • [G.R. No. 195195 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDGAR SAGORIO Y BABISTA

  • [G.R. No. 195305 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CLEOTILDO CALUCAG

  • [G.R. No. 187079 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SALVADOR BON Y AGSANGRE

  • [G.R. No. 188121 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ABDULBASIT BERIN Y ABDULBAKI A.K.A. "BASHID BERIN" A.K.A. "BAS"

  • [G.R. No. 188572 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DATUNOT UNTONG Y ABAS

  • [G.R. No. 184052 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LUISITO MASCARIÑA Y LEAL

  • [G.R. No. 181825 : June 01, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RASOL MATAS Y SAMAMA

  • [A.C. No. 8529 : June 01, 2011] RENATO P. DRAGON V. ATTYS. ROMULUS S. PROTACIO, ANGELITA ALBERTO-GACUTAN, RAUL T. AQUINO, AND VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY

  • [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.