G.R. No. 88802. March 17, 1993.
FROILAN C. GERVASIO, CARLITA C. GERVASIO and INO MINING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. ROLANDO V. CUAÑO, Regional Technical Director, Mines & Geo-Sciences, and WILFREDO S. POLLISCO, Regional Executive Director, DENR, Region IV, respondents.

FACTS

Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) held several lode lease and mining lease contracts in Mogpog, Marinduque. On July 15, 1988, petitioners Froilan C. Gervasio, Carlita C. Gervasio, and Ino Mining Corporation filed a letter-protest with the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences, alleging CMI’s contracts had been abandoned for non-payment of required fees under mining regulations. CMI filed a complaint against petitioners for overlapping claims. After a failed amicable settlement, petitioners filed a formal “Petition for Cancellation” on February 7, 1989, seeking to nullify CMI’s contracts and to have their own claims approved. Petitioners requested a docket number and to pay a docket fee for this petition. The DENR officials, respondents Rolando V. Cuaño and Wilfredo S. Pollisco, refused to accept the offered docket fee (returning postal money orders) and to assign a docket number, stating it was policy not to charge docketing fees for complaints. Hearings on the petition were nevertheless conducted, and memoranda were submitted. Petitioners filed this mandamus action to compel respondents to accept the docket fee and assign a docket number, citing Section 121 of the Consolidated Mines Administrative Order (CMAO), which requires a docket fee for the filing of adverse claims, protests, or oppositions.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents unlawfully neglected their duty and excluded petitioners from a right by refusing to accept a docket fee and assign a docket number to the Petition for Cancellation, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for mandamus. The Court ruled that the petitioners’ letter-protest and Petition for Cancellation did not constitute an “adverse claim, protest, or any other kind of opposition” as contemplated under Section 121 of the CMAO, which implements Section 48 of P.D. No. 463. The docket fee requirement under that section applies to protests or adverse claims filed during the pendency of an application for a mining lease. Here, the petition sought the cancellation of already granted contracts, a different proceeding. Consequently, respondents had no duty to collect a fee or assign a docket number. Mandamus requires a clear legal right to the act demanded and a correlative duty of the respondent to perform it. Petitioners established neither. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioners were not excluded from any right, as their pleadings were accepted, hearings were held, and they were allowed to submit memoranda, all without the payment of the fee they insisted on paying.