Bonaventure Mining Corporation v VIL Mines (Natural Resources)

BONAVENTURE MINING CORPORATION v V.I.L MINES, INC. 

G.R. No. 174918 

August 13, 2008  

FACTS:  

This case involves a conflict over mining claims between BMC and VMI over a mountainous section that transcends the common boundaries of the provinces of Quezon and Camarines Norte, specifically within the municipal jurisdictions of Tagkawayan and Guinigayangan in Quezon, and Labo and Sta. Elena in Camarines Norte.  

On October 4, 1999, VMI filed a petition for the cancellation of BMC's exploration permit application claiming that it overlaps with its prior and existing application.  The petition was later amended on February 28, 2000, to include the cancellation and confirmation of the nullity of St. Joe Mining Corporation's EPA-IVA-24.  

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: 

* POA: upholding the validity of VMI's exploration permit application and declaring BMC's and St. Joe Mining Corporation's applications as null and void. * MAB: gave due course to BMC's application for an exploration permit but allowed VMI's application to proceed, sans the areas covered by BMC's application. * CA: reversed and set aside the decision of the MAB and reinstated the decision of the Panel of Arbitrators  

ISSUE & RULING: 

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DENR MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 97-07 ON RETENTION REQUIREMENTS WOULD CAUSE THE CANCELLATION OF THE FTAA APPLICATION BY OPERATION OF LAW.  

NO, cancellation was proper.  

Section 12 of DMO 97-07 reads:  

SECTION 12. Divestment/Relinquishment of Areas in Excess of Maximum FTAA Contract Area  

All FTAA applications filed prior to the effectivity of the Act which exceed the maximum contract area as set forth in Section 34 of the Act and Section 51 of the IRR must conform to said maximum on or before September 15, 1997. For this purpose, all applicants who have not otherwise relinquished or divested any areas held in excess of the allowable maximum by September 15, 1997 must relinquish/divest said areas on such date in favor of the Government by filing a Declaration of Areas Relinquished/Divested, containing the technical description of such area/s, with the Bureau/ concerned Regional Office. The concerned applications shall be accordingly amended and areas relinquished/divested shall be open for Mining Applications.  

x  x  x  

Failure to relinquish/divest areas in excess of the maximum contract area as provided for in this section will result in the denial or cancellation of the FTAA application after which, the areas covered thereby shall be open for Mining Applications. (Emphasis supplied)  

Section 12 of DMO 97-07 must be read in conjunction with Section 14 which states that the deadlines therein are not subject to extension, viz:  

SECTION 14. No Extension of Periods  

The deadline set at September 15, 1997 pursuant to Section 4 hereof and all other periods prescribed herein shall not be subject to extension. (Emphasis supplied)  

DMO 97-07 was promulgated precisely to set a specific date for all FTAA applicants within which to relinquish all areas in excess of the maximum prescribed by law.  Accordingly, the deadline cannot be extended or changed except by amending DMO 97-07.  OIC-Regional Director Reynulfo Juan had no authority to extend the deadline set by DMO 97-07.  

The language of the memorandum order is plain, precise and unequivocal – the period cannot be extended.  Beyond that, the pending FTAA applications could no longer be officially acted upon as they were deemed to have expired. DMO 97-07 could only be extended by another memorandum order or law specifically amending the deadline set forth therein.  No government officer or employee can do so.