PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PNOC-EDC) v VENERACION (Natural Resources)

PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PNOC-EDC) v VENERACION 

G.R. No. 129820             

November 30, 2006  

FACTS:   

This case involves the conflicting claims of the petitioner Philippine National Oil Corporation-Energy Development Corporation and the respondent over the mining rights over Block 159 of the Malangas Coal Reservation, Alicia, Zamboanga del Sur.  

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:  

*RED of the DENR Office in Zamboanga City: ruled in favor of VENERACION and ordered the PNOC to amend its Mineral Production Sharing Agreement [MPSA] by excluding therefrom Block 159 *DENR secretary: dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioner's right to appeal had already prescribed.Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 463 provides therefore for a five-day reglementary period from the receipt of the order or decision of the Director. *DENR secretary (motion for reconsideration): reversed the Decision, dated 4 October 1994, and gave due course to the MPSA of the petitioner. *DENR secretary (2nd motion for reconsideration): ruled that the Orders issued by the RED have already become final and executory when the petitioner failed to file its appeal five days after it had received the Orders. *MAB (took cognizance pursuant to the Philippine Mining Act): filed its appeal beyond the five-day prescriptive period provided under Presidential Decree No. 463, which was then the governing law on the matter.  

ISSUES:  

(1) whether or not the petitioner has already lost its right to appeal the RED's Order dated 12 April 1993; and  

(2) whether or not the petitioner acquired a preferential right on mining rights over Block 159.  

HELD: *On propriety of appeal: The correct mode of appeal would have been to file a petition for review under Rule 43, before the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, this Court has taken into account the fact that these cases [which provided the doctrine] were promulgated after the petitioner filed this appeal on 4 August 1997, and decided to take cognizance of the present case.  

(1) YES, the right to appeal is lost. Petitioner's insistence that the 30-day reglementary period provided by Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 137, as amended, applies, cannot be sustained by this Court. By providing a five-day period within which to file an appeal on the decisions of the Director of Mines and Geo-Sciences, Presidential Decree No. 463 unquestionably repealed Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 137.  

Nor can petitioner invoke the doctrine that rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice. The right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.  

In the instant case, petitioner failed to state any compelling reason for not filing its appeal within the mandated period. Instead, the records show that after failing to comply with the period within which to file their motion for reconsideration on time, they again failed to file their appeal before the Office of the DENR Secretary within the time provided by law.  

(2) NO, Even if petitioner had not lost its right to appeal, it cannot claim any mining rights over Block 159 for failure to comply with the legal requirements.  

SEC. 15. Government Reserved Land. – Lands reserved by the Government for purposes other than mining are open to prospecting. Any interested party may file an application therefore with the head of the agency administering said land, subject always to compliance with pertinent laws and rules and regulations covering such reserved land. Such application shall be acted upon within thirty (30) days. In such cases, the compensation due the surface owner shall accrue equally to the agency administering the reserved land and the Bureau of Mines.  

The law enumerates the following requirements:  

(1) a prospecting permit from the agency that has jurisdiction over the area, in this case, the OEA;  

(2) an exploration permit from the BMGS; 

(3) if the exploration reveals the presence of commercial deposit, the permitee applies before the BMGS for the exclusion of the area from the reservation; 

(4) granting by the president of the application to exclude the area from the reservation; and  

(5) a mining agreement approved by the DENR Secretary.  

In this case, petitioner complied with the first requirement and obtained a prospecting permit from the OEA. In its correspondence with the petitioner, the OEA, however, advised the petitioner on two separate occasions to obtain a "prospecting permit" from the BMGS, although the OEA was probably referring to an exploration permit. The petitioner did not apply for an exploration permit with the BMGS, nor would the BMGS have granted petitioner an exploration permit because when petitioner wrote to the BMGS informing the latter of its intention to enter into an MPSA with the DENR over Block 159, the BMGS informed the petitioner that the respondent's claim over Block 159 had already preceded that of the petitioner. The advice given by the BMGS was justified since at that time, the respondent already had a pending application for the exclusion of Block 159 from the Malangas Coal Reservation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his MPSA application, without complying with the second, third and fourth requisites. Since it ignored the sound advice of the OEA and the BMGS, the government agencies concerned, and stubbornly insisted on its incorrect procedure, petitioner cannot complain now that its MPSA was revoked for failure to comply with the legal requirements.  

OBITER DICTA: 

(1) Decisions of the Supreme Court on mining disputes have recognized a distinction between 

(1) the primary powers granted by pertinent provisions of law to the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (and the bureau directors) of an executive or administrative nature, such as "granting of license, permits, lease and contracts, or approving, rejecting, reinstating or cancelling applications, or deciding conflicting applications," and 

(2) controversies or disagreements of civil or contractual nature between litigants which are questions of a judicial nature that may be adjudicated only by the courts of justice.  

(2) Findings of fact by the Mines Adjudication Board, which exercises appellate jurisdiction over decisions or orders of the panel of arbitrators, shall be conclusive and binding on the parties, and its decision or order shall be final and executory. But resort to the appropriate court, through a petition for review by certiorari, involving questions of law, may be made within thirty days from the receipt of the order or decision of the Mines Adjudication Board.