G.R. No. L-21230; August 29, 1966
Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., petitioner and appellant, vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Director of Mines, respondents and appellees. Anifelina S. Galang, Belen S. Galang, Arsenio Galang, Jr., and Ruperto S. Galang, intervenors and appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Gold Star Mining Co., Inc. filed Lode Lease Application No. R-56 with the Bureau of Mines covering 21 mining claims in Marinduque. The Director of Mines denied the application on September 9, 1960, for failure to comply with the Mining Act and pertinent rules. The denial was reiterated on December 19, 1960. Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. During this appeal, the Galang intervenors were allowed to intervene due to their interest in seven of the claims. On June 7, 1961, the Secretary dismissed the appeal for petitioner’s failure to comply with the Mining Law, make required survey deposits, and pay occupation fees. Petitioner received notice on July 20, 1961, and its motion for reconsideration was denied on September 17, 1961. On October 12, 1961, petitioner filed a petition with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Marinduque to set aside the Secretary’s decision. The petition alleged the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion. Respondents and intervenors jointly moved to dismiss, arguing petitioner failed to file an appeal bond within the reglementary period and that the allegation of grave abuse of discretion made the action one for certiorari, which the CFI of Marinduque could not entertain as respondents had offices in Manila and Quezon City, beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Petitioner opposed, contending no appeal bond was required and that its deposit of a P32.00 filing fee sufficed. The CFI dismissed the petition on February 21, 1963, for failure to file an appeal bond and, alternatively, for lack of jurisdiction if the action was considered certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Marinduque correctly dismissed petitioner’s action on the grounds of failure to file an appeal bond and/or lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, the order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the action filed by petitioner in the lower court was not an original action for certiorari but an appeal from the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 79. As an appeal, it is governed by the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 41 or Rule 40, both of which require the filing of an appeal bond. Petitioner admitted it did not file such a bond. Therefore, the lower court was justified in dismissing the appeal on that ground. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the alternative jurisdictional issue regarding certiorari.