G.R. No. L-21588, July 31, 1967
Case Parties:

ATLAS DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION (Formerly Atlas Cement Corporation), petitioner-appellant,
vs.
HON. BENJAMIN M. GOZON, Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF MINES, CARSEC MINING ASSOCIATION, PASIG MINING ASSOCIATION and MANUEL J. C. REYES, respondents-appellees.
CARSEC MINING ASSOCIATION, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Atlas Development and Acceptance Corporation (ATLAS) discovered limestone deposits in Antipolo, Rizal, and located, staked, and recorded three mineral claims (Atlas I, II, and III), filing corresponding lease applications. Respondents Carsec Mining Association (CARSEC), Pasig Mining Association (PASIG), and Manuel J.C. Reyes protested, alleging overlapping claims. The Director of Mines ruled in favor of CARSEC and PASIG, awarding them preferential rights to lease the conflicting areas. ATLAS appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who affirmed the Director’s decision. ATLAS then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal seeking to set aside the decisions of the Director of Mines and the Secretary, alleging errors including that CARSEC was not legally existing at the time of its claim location and that PASIG’s claims were not properly located under the Mining Law. CARSEC filed an answer with a cross-claim against PASIG. PASIG moved to dismiss both the petition and cross-claim for lack of cause of action. The lower court granted the motion, ruling the petition was neither a proper appeal nor a petition for certiorari and thus stated no valid cause of action, and that the cross-claim consequently had no merit. ATLAS and CARSEC appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the petition filed by ATLAS in the Court of First Instance under Section 61 of the Mining Act constitutes a valid cause of action for judicial review of the administrative decisions, and whether the cross-claim by CARSEC was properly dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal with respect to ATLAS’s petition but affirmed the dismissal of CARSEC’s cross-claim. The Court held that Section 61 of the Mining Act authorizes a judicial review of decisions of the Director of Mines or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, but does not specify the precise procedural vehicle. It is neither a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 nor a formal appeal under Rule 40 requiring bonds and trial de novo. Instead, it is a petition for review sufficient if filed within the 30-day period and containing allegations warranting judicial cognizance, such as denial of due process, mistake of law, fraud, collusion, or arbitrary action. ATLAS’s petition, which alleged specific legal errors in the administrative decisions, was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. However, CARSEC’s cross-claim was properly dismissed because it sought review of the Secretary’s decision, which had become final as to CARSEC, as it was not filed within the statutory 30-day period for seeking judicial review. The case was remanded for further proceedings on ATLAS’s petition.