[G.R. No. 132475. September 11, 2000]

SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., vs. MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 11 2000.

G.R. No. 132475 (Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation, petitioner v. The Mines Adjudication Board, et al., respondents) and G.R. No. 132528 (Rosendo Villaflor, et al., petitioners v. Hon. Mines Adjudication Board, et al., respondents.)

This Court once again echoes the tenor of Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that an appeal from decisions, final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

Before us are two consolidated petitions seeking the nullification of the Decision of public respondent Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) dated January 6, 1998 which vacated the Omnibus Resolution of the Panel of Arbitrators dated June 13, 1997 in the consolidated Red Mines Case No. 8-8-94 and MAC Case Nos. 005(Xl), 007(Xl), 009 (Xl), O10(Xl), 012(Xl), 016 and 97-01 dismissing all adverse claims against petitioner Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) and affirming the validity of Exploration Permit No. 133.

The first petition, which was filed by petitioner SEM on February 18, 1998, is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The second petition, which was filed by petitioners Villaflor, et al. on February 23, 1998, is a petition for review by certiorari based on the last paragraph of Section 79 of Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, which states: "[a] petition for review by certiorari and question of law may be filed by the aggrieved party with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order or decision of the Board."

A brief statement of the procedure laid down by R.A. NO. 7942 on the jurisdiction of the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) is necessary so that these petitions may be placed in proper perspective.

Republic Act No. 7942, entitled "An Act Instituting a New System of Mineral Resources Exploration, Development, Utilization, and Conservation" was enacted by Congress on March 3, 1995. Chapter XII of said Act, which provides the procedure for settlement of conflicts, states that there shall be a panel of arbitrators in the regional office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) which shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide on the following:

(a)������� Disputes involving rights to mining areas;

(b)������� Disputes involving mineral agreements or permits;

(c)������� Disputes involving surface owners, occupants and claimholders/concessionaires; and

(d)������� Disputes pending before the Bureau and the Department at the date of the effectivity of this Act. 1 Section 77, R.A. No. 7942.

The decision or order of the panel of arbitrators may be appealed to the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB). 2 Section 78, R.A. No. 7942.The factual findings of the MAB shall be conclusive and binding on the parties and its decision or order shall be final and executory. 3 Section 79, R.A. No. 7942.However, the aggrieved party may file a petition for review by certiorari and question of law with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order or decision of the MAB. 4 Ibid.

Under the said statute therefore, it appears that decisions of the Mines Adjudication Board, which exercises appellate jurisdiction over decisions or orders of the panel of arbitrators, are unappealable subject only to this Court's certiorari jurisdiction. Stated otherwise, no appeal to the Supreme Court can lie from judgments, final orders and resolutions of the MAB and that a party aggrieved thereby may proceed to the Supreme Court but only on a petition on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof.

After thoroughly reviewing the allegations and grounds raised in both petitions, this Court finds that the parties disregarded settled legal precepts that the Supreme Court neither has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of quasi-judicial bodies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions nor is it a trier of facts.

Firstly, petitioner SEM overlooked that the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. 5 Fabian v. Disierto, 295 SCRA 470, 486.Section 1 of Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, providing for "Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court", explicitly states:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A person desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

Thus, appeals may be brought through a petition for review on certiorari but only from judgments and final orders of the courts enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. 6 Id., at p.487.

Secondly, questions of fact, aside from questions of law, which are brought for resolution before this Court by both petitioners are not proper under Rule 65 since review therein is limited to jurisdictional questions. The Court of Appeals, as a trier of facts, is better situated than this Court to resolve questions of fact.

WHEREFORE, let these two consolidated cases be REFERRED to the Court of Appeals as petitions for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the same to be disposed of in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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