REMEDIAL LAW | Mr. Holdings, Inc., v. De Jesus, et al., G.R. No. 217837, Sep. 4, 2019

Mr. Holdings, Inc., v. De Jesus, et al., 

G.R. No. 217837, Sep. 4, 2019


FACTS: Onephil Mineral Resources, Inc. filed an Exploration Permit Application covering a land area in the Municipalities of Sta. Cruz and Boac, Province of Marinduque. The application was forwarded to the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB) for evaluation. The MGB found that the application overlapped with several other mining applications or claims. The MGB requested recommendations from other government agencies and informed Onephil of the conflicts. Onephil submitted an amended application, but it still conflicted with other mining applications and claims. Marcopper Mining Corporation, the operator of the San Antonio Copper Project (SACP), also had a pending application for a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) in the same area. Marcopper notified the MGB of the conflict between its MPSA application and Onephil's application. Onephil submitted another amended application that showed no conflict with existing mining applications or claims. The One-Stop Shop Committee (OSSC) issued an Area Status and Clearance in favor of Onephil, stating that the applied area is open to mining application. However, Onephil's Exploration Permit Application is still pending before the MGB. Marcopper sought to expand its MPSA application and notified the MGB of the conflict with Onephil's application. The MGB rejected Marcopper's claim and denied the amendment of its MPSA application. Marcopper filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus against the MGB Regional Director. The case was dismissed by the RTC for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC ruled that the case involves a mining dispute and is within the jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators. The CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the case. The CA ruled that the issue involved in the case is a mining dispute and requires the application of technological knowledge and experience of mining authorities. Whether the dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators.


RULING: Yes. The nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred since jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.


Here, Interpreting paragraph (a) of Section 77 of the Philippine Mining Act, the Court in Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corp. v. Macroasia Corp.,47 held that paragraph (a) of Section 77 of the Mining Act “specifically refer only to those disputes relative to the applications for a mineral agreement or conferment of mining rights.”The current dispute squarely falls under paragraph (a) of Section 77 of the Philippine Mining Act as it involves a dispute relative to the application of Onephil for an exploration permit.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147