GR 188364; (February, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188364 February 11, 2015
K & G MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ACOJE MINING COMPANY, INCORPORATED and ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner K & G Mining Corporation (KGMC) and respondents Acoje Mining Company Incorporated (AMCI) and Zambales Chromite Mining Company Incorporated (ZCMCI) are mining corporations. ZCMCI acquired 60 mining claims in Sta. Cruz, Zambales in 1970, originally registered under the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902. ZCMCI filed an application for patent and availment of rights under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 463, approved on July 13, 1977. Pursuant to P.D. No. 1214, ZCMCI filed a lease application (under protest) on October 11, 1978. On June 11, 1988, ZCMCI entered into an operating agreement with AMCI over its mining claims.
Meanwhile, on October 24, 1988 and January 10, 1989, Dominador Ilagan registered mining claims “Bong 1 to Bong 6” in Sta. Cruz, Zambales, which he assigned to KGMC on May 29, 1989 and August 17, 1989. On June 1, 1990, KGMC filed a letter of intent for a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) over these claims.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 279, the MGB informed ZCMCI that its mining lease application should be converted into an MPSA. On May 21, 1991, ZCMCI, AMCI, and the government, represented by the DENR Secretary, executed an MPSA covering ZCMCI’s 60 claims. This MPSA was approved by the Office of the President on September 5, 1991.
KGMC filed a protest, arguing the MPSA was irregularly executed because AMCI and ZCMCI did not file their application with the appropriate DENR Regional Office as required by Department Administrative Orders (DAOs) 1989-57 and 1990-82, failed to comply with documentary requirements and payments, and the area overlapped with KGMC’s claims. The Panel of Arbitrators ruled in favor of KGMC, recommending cancellation of the MPSA. The Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) reversed this, declaring the MPSA valid. KGMC’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
KGMC filed a Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that decisions of the MAB are appealable via a petition for review under Rule 43, not certiorari under Rule 65, and that even if certiorari were available, the reglementary period had prescribed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing KGMC’s petition for certiorari for being an improper remedy.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Resolutions. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail the MAB Decision and Resolution. The MAB is a quasi-judicial agency whose decisions are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. KGMC’s failure to timely file the correct remedy rendered the MAB’s decision final and executory. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA’s dismissal. The procedural misstep by KGMC in filing the wrong petition was fatal to its cause.