GR 111157; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111157 March 19, 1997
ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, JAMES BRETT, EDGAR KAPAWEN, LILY CAMARA and JAIME PAUL B. PANGANIBAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. (ISMI) filed protests with the Bureau of Mines and Geosciences against the mining claims of private respondents James Brett, Edgar Kapawen, and Lily Camara, alleging that their claims overlapped with ISMI’s valid and subsisting mining claims. The Bureau’s 1984 decision upheld the claims of Brett, Kapawen, and intervenor Jaime Paul B. Panganiban in certain areas, while also recognizing some of ISMI’s claims. ISMI appealed to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), which initially dismissed the appeal for failure to file the appeal memorandum within the five-day reglementary period. The MNR later reversed itself, declaring the private respondents’ claims null and void, but upon reconsideration, reinstated its original order dismissing ISMI’s appeal for procedural lapse and on the merits.
ISMI then appealed to the Office of the President (OP). The OP, in its 1993 decision, affirmed the MNR’s order, effectively sustaining the Bureau’s original decision. The OP ruled that ISMI’s appeal to the MNR was filed out of time, as the five-day period for perfecting an appeal in mining cases is mandatory and jurisdictional. It also found no reversible error in the Bureau’s factual findings regarding the validity of the overlapping claims.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the President committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of ISMI’s appeal and upholding the mining claims of the private respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the OP’s decision. The Court held that no grave abuse of discretion attended the OP’s ruling. On procedure, the Court emphasized that the five-day period to perfect an appeal in mining cases under Section 61 of the Philippine Mining Act is mandatory and jurisdictional. ISMI’s failure to file its appeal memorandum within this period rendered the MNR’s dismissal order final and executory. The OP correctly refused to disturb this procedural finding.
On the substantive issue of claim overlap, the Court applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and accorded great respect to the factual findings of the specialized administrative agencies—the Bureau and the DENR. Their determination that the private respondents’ claims were valid and that ISMI failed to prove its prior valid location was supported by substantial evidence. The OP, in its appellate review, found no error in these factual conclusions. The Court reiterated that it is not its function to re-evaluate evidence in administrative cases absent proof of fraud, error of law, or grave abuse of discretion, none of which was sufficiently demonstrated by ISMI.