GR 115104; (October, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115104 October 12, 1998
MACAWIWILI GOLD MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. and OMICO MINING AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
On October 16, 1992, respondent Philex Mining Corporation filed a complaint for expropriation against petitioners Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. and Omico Mining & Industrial Corporation before the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet. Philex sought to expropriate 21.9 hectares of petitioners’ mining areas, known as the “Macawiwili claims,” pursuant to Section 59 of P.D. No. 463. Philex also moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent petitioners from ejecting it from the area, where Philex had existing improvements (roads, a motorpool, a tailings dam, and bunkhouses). The RTC initially issued a temporary restraining order but later denied the application for a preliminary injunction. On February 18, 1993, the trial court granted petitioners’ motion and dismissed Philex’s complaint. The trial court reasoned that the Supreme Court had already recognized petitioners’ possessory rights over the claims in a prior decision (Poe Mining Association vs. Garcia), and allowing expropriation would defy that final ruling and constitute forum-shopping. The court also held that the land, being awarded for mining, had a public character and that expropriation under P.D. 463 was merely an auxiliary right, not absolute. Furthermore, it ruled that separating surface rights (sought by Philex) from subsurface mineral rights (held by petitioners) was legally untenable. Philex appealed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it raised only questions of law (the propriety of expropriation under the given facts) which should have been brought directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss, prompting petitioners to file this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss Philex’s appeal, given that the appeal raised only questions of law which should have been brought directly to the Supreme Court.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the challenged resolution of the Court of Appeals, and DISMISSED the appeal of respondent Philex Mining.
The core issues Philex raised in its appeal—whether it had the right to expropriate under P.D. 463 given the prior Supreme Court decision, whether such expropriation constituted forum-shopping, and whether surface rights could be separated from subsurface rights—were purely questions of law. These issues required no re-examination of the evidence but only a determination of the applicable law on the established facts. Under the Rules of Court, appeals raising only questions of law must be brought directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court of Appeals therefore had no jurisdiction over the appeal. Its denial of the motion to dismiss constituted a patent disregard of this settled rule, amounting to grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. Consequently, Philex’s appeal was improperly before the Court of Appeals and was dismissed.