Case Digest: MISSMA vs. SMGMC, et al and DENR Secretary Cerilles vs. SMGMC, et al (G.R. No. 149638 & 149916)

G.R. No. 149638, December 10, 2014

MONCAYO INTEGRATED SMALL-SCALE MINERS ASSOCIATION, INC. [MISSMA], Petitioner, v.SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., JB. MGT. MINING CORP., PICOP RESOURCES, INC., MT. DIWATA UPPER ULIP MANDAYA TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC. AND BALITE INTEGRATED SMALL-SCALE MINING CORP., (BISSMICO), Respondents. 

[G.R. NO. 149916]

HON. ANTONIO H. CERILLES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Petitioner, v. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORPORATION (SMGMC) AND BALITE INTEGRATED SMALL-SCALE MINING CORP., (BISSMICO), Respondents.

Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) 

Macropper Mining Corporation (Marcopper) 

Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences (BMGS) 

Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp (SMGMC) 

4941 hectares within Agusan0Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve (The Forest Reserve) 

JB Management Mining Corporation, Davao United Miners Cooperative, Balite Integrated Small Scale Miners Cooperative, MISSMA, PICOP, Rosendo Villaflor, et al., Antonio G. Dacudao, Puting Bato Gold Miners Cooperative, and Romeo Altamera (THE OTHER MINERS) 

MONCAYO INTEGRATED SMALL-SCALE MINERS ASSOCIATION, INC. [MISSMA]

FACTS:

Marcopper was given the following permits over “The Forest Reserve”

Permit to Prospect	July 1, 1985	By BFD
Permit to Explore (EP133)	March 10 1986	By BMGS

Marcopper assigned EP 133 to SMGMC. SMGMC’s Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) application was ordered published, to which The Other Miners filed their adverse claim. arguing that as per DAO #66, 729 hec gold rush area of The Forest Reserve in Mt. Diwalwal as forest land was open for small-scale mining purposes.

DENR panel of arbitrators ruling: EP 133 VALID; adverse claims against MPSA #128 DISMISSED.

MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD (MAB) RULING: SMGMC’s application was given due course but the area covered by DAO 66 (DAO 66 declared on Dec. 27, 1991, 729 hectares of Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve as Forest Land open for small-scale mining purposes), actually occupied and mined by small-scale miners on or before August 1, 1987 was declared excluded from SMGMC’s application. They were encouraged to negotiate and come to an agreement

SMGMC and The Other Miners both appealed the MAB ruling (before the Supreme Court in cases G.R. No. 152613, G.R. No. 152628, G.R. Nos 152619-20, and G.R. Nos. 152870-71)

The Provincial Mining Regulatory Board of Davao (PMRB) declared and segregated a 729-hectares gold rush as a People’s Small Scale Mining Area in accordance with the MAB decision, notwithstanding opposition by SMGMS and a number of mining companies.

The DENR secretary affirmed the PMRB’s decision with modification.

SMGMC filed a petition under Rule 43 against the DENR secretary’s decision.

CA RULING 1: petition denied.

-               : “no injunction by SC against MAB decision.

-               : “litis pendentia; MAB decision involved prejudicial question” (prejudicial since there were other cases already filed on the same issues)

SMGMC MR-ed the CA Ruling.

CA RULING 2: DENR Secretary’s decision issued with grave abuse of discretion in excess of jurisdiction.

            -SMGMC may apply and be entitled to a particular area within the 729 hectares (citing DENR Undersecretary La Viña)

-               :” DENR Secretary’s outright delineation of the subject area in favor of certain entities contravenes the mandate of the MAB Decision and the purpose of RA 7076 (People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991), inasmuch as it disenfranchises the petitioner and other small-scale miners who may apply for and be awarded small-scale mining contracts by the local government units upon recommendation of the PMRB after the fulfilment of necessary conditions set forth in the law.“

PETITIONER VS. RESPONDENTS

Petitioner MISSMA  filed the first petition for review assailing CA ruling 2

           - Argument: SMGMC already found guilty of forum shopping and litis pendencia by CA

- the issued in present case and G.R. 132475, assailing MAB’s decision have the same issue

            -PMRB and the DENR secretary may act (in segregating and delineating gold rush area, independently of the MAB (which is a quasi-judicial body tasked to settle mining conflicts, disputes or claims)

           

DENR secretary Cerilles agreed with MISSMA

                      -argued further assert that the segregation does not contravene MAB decision and RA 7076 since there is no award yet of any license or permit made to any qualified small-scale miner.

            -“moot and academic”

   (1) then President Macapagal-Arroyo’s issuance of Proclamation No. 297 excluding an area from Proclamation No. 369 and declaring this as a mineral reservation and as an environmentally critical area,

    (2) this court’s decision dated June 23, 2006 in G.R. Nos. 152613, 152628, 152619-20, 152870-71 declaring DAO No. 66 as void, declaring EP 133 as expired, and underscoring the Executive’s power of supervision and control over the exploration, development, and utilization of the country’s mineral resources.

Respondent PICOP argues

            -That PMRB has no authority to declare the 729 hec within the forest reserve as People’s Small Scale Mining ares

            -That there is a difference between “Forest reserves and “forest reservation”; and that there is a need for Congress to pass a law reclassigying areas to another use.

            -Pres. Arroyo’s Proclamation No. 297 lack congressional concurrence, thus revocable. Also unconstitutional.

The Court ordered the parties to submit their manifestations on subsequent developments.

SMGMC manifested that the issues in the present case was mooted by the decision and resolution of the court in the Consoidated Petitions of Apex (G.R. Nos. 152613 and 152628), Balite Communal Portal Cooperative (G.R. Nos. 152619-20), and MAB (G.R. Nos. 152870-71) ruling that EP 133 has expired by its non-renewal, that its transfer to SMGMC was void, and that DAO No. 66 was illegal for having been issued in excess of the DENR Secretary’s authority.

Counsels for MISSMA and PICOP filed a manifestation that they were unable to communicate with their clients.

THE DENR SECRETARY submitted an enumeration of developments o the Diwalwal area as per the PMDC’s letter.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals can set aside the issue of forum shopping and litis pendencia (SMGMC's petition in G.R. No. 132475), and dwell on the merits;
2. Whether the DENR Secretary’s decision went beyond the PMRB’s decision, otherwise, whether the DENR Secretary can modify the PMRB’s decision; and
3. Whether the DENR Secretary’s modification to divide the 729 hectares into two areas contravened the mandate of the MAB decision and the purpose of Republic Act No. 7076.

RULING:

      1.         Issues in present case MOOT AND ACADEMIC by subsequent developments

a.)      The parties recognized the developments in the present case in light of the court decisions and Pres. Arroyo’s Proclamation #297

b.)      DENR Administrative Order No. 2002-18 declared an emergency situation on the Diwalwal gold rush area and ordered the stoppage of all mining operations in the area;

c.)      Apex Mining vs. SMGMC case

-EP133 expired; and the subsequent transfer to SMGMC void since assignment was without approval of DENR secretary

- ruling on court regarding the matter is conclusive between the parties”

-since EP 133 expired and transfer void, SMGMC no longer has any basis over claim or right over the 729 hectares

- DAO No. 66 (delineating the 729 hectares of the areas covered by the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve as non-Forest land open to small-scale mining operations) illegal as it is beyond DENR secretary’s authority (the DENR Secretary has no power to convert forest reserves into non-forest reserves. Only the President has that power)

-Court ruled in the said case that “the State, through the Executive Department xxx may now award mining operations in the disputed area xxx”

Then Proclamation No. 297(Moncayo Compostela Valley excluded and declared as a mineral reservation and environmentally critical area) was issued. Followed by DENR AO # 2002-18(emergency situation in gold rush area) and EO # 217 (creating the National Task Force Diwalwal).

     2.         LITIS PENDENTIA

                        The Court did not decide on whether there was forum shopping or litis pendencia as the issue was mooted by Apex Mining vs. SMGMC.

    3.  The Court discussed the powers of different agencies in relation to mining activities and laid down by the relevant laws.

MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD	Exclusive and  Original Jurisdiction 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. Appellate Jurisdiction a.           Decisions/orders of the panel of arbitrators
PROVINCIAL MINING REGULATORY BOARD (created under R.A. 7076 or “People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991)	-covers settlement of conflicts over mining claims -Sec. 24, R.A. 7076  a.  Declare and segregate existing gold-rich areas for small-scale mining; b.               Reserve future gold and other mining areas for small-scale mining c. Award contracts to small-scale miners d. Formulate and implement rules and regulations related to small-scale mining e. Settle disputes, conflicts or litigations over conflicting claims within a people’s small-scale mining area, an area that is declared a small mining area f. Perform such other functions as may be necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of this Act *subject to review by DENR Secretary *re declaration/setting aside of People’s Small-Scale Mining Ares in sites onshore suitable for small-scale mining operations- subject to review by the DENR Secretary thru the Director
DENR SECRETARY	Sec 26, R.A. 7076 -power of direct supervision and control over “the program and the activities of the small-scale miners within the people’s small-scale mining area” (In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer ha[s] done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.) -The Court emphasied the DENR Secretary's Power to affirm with modification (review) the PMRB’s decision
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT	CONSTITUTION  -“[t]he State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens[.]”103chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary -“[t]he President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country[.]” SEC 5 OF R.A. 7942 on mineral reservations  “[m]ining operations in existing mineral reservations and such other reservations as may thereafter be established, shall be undertaken by the Department or through a contractor[.]” APEX VS. SMGMC “"Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7942 is a special provision, as it specifically treats of the establishment of mineral reservations only. Said provision grants the President the power to proclaim a mineral land as a mineral reservation, regardless of whether such land is also an existing forest reservation.” SMGMC vs. Balite Portal Mining Coop. (involving the same Diwalwal Gold rush area) “the State may not be precluded from considering a direct takeover of the mines, if it is the only plausible remedy in sight to the gnawing complexities generated by the gold rush.”

     4.         Validity of Proclamation # 297 as raised by PICOP

           

         The Court ruled that the same was not an issue in these cases. The subsequent development was not litigated, and this is not the proper case to assail its validity.

Categories: Case Digest: MISSMA vs. SMGMC, et al (G.R. No. 149638 & 149916), et al and DENR Secretary Cerilles vs. SMGMC