Asiga Mining Corporation Vs. Manila Mining Corporation and Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation


1.    On March 31, 1997, Asiga applied with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) to convert its mining claims into a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) as required by the Mining Act of 1995 and its implementing rules and regulations.

It was during this application process when Asiga discovered that its mining claims overlapped with that of respondent Manila Mining Corporation (respondent MMC), by about 1,661 hectares, and of respondent Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation (respondent BMEC) by 214 hectares.

After satisfying the initial mandatory requirements, respondents MMC and BMEC published and posted their respective Notices of Application for MPSA in a newspaper of general circulation for two (2) consecutive weeks, and posted the same in the bulletin boards of concerned government agencies.

More than 30 days after the said publication, Asiga filed Adverse Claim with Petition for Preliminary Injunction against the respondents MMC and BMEC.

The respondents MMC and BMEC, on the other hand, separately filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of prescription and abandonment of mining claims alleging that Asiga already abandoned its mining claims because it failed to file an Affidavit of Annual Work Obligation (AAWO) showing its work performance over the subject mining areas for more than two (2) consecutive years.

Are the respondents correct?

No, the respondents are not correct.

The Supreme Court held that it is the failure to perform the required assessment work, not the failure to file the AAWO that gives rise to abandonment. Moreover, the cancellation of their mining claims could only be considered proper upon observance of due process, which, according to Yinlu, takes the form of: (1) a written notice of non-compliance to the claim owners and lessees and an ample opportunity to comply; and (2) in the event of the claim owners' and lessees' failure to comply, a written notice effecting the cancellation of their mining claims.

In this case, nothing on record indicates that the foregoing requirements have been complied with. There were no notices sent to Asiga, which either notified it of its non-compliance to Section 27 or notified it of the cancellation of its mining claims.

Thus, on the basis of the foregoing, it could not be said that the petitioner has abandoned its mining claims over the disputed parcels of land.


2.    The petitioner asks the court on the proper interpretation of the below provision:

Section 27, as it now stands, was modified by Section 2 of P.D. No. 1902:

SECTION 2. Section 27 of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended by Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 1385 and Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1677, is further amended to read as follows:

SECTION. 27. Annual Work Obligations. — The claimowner/lessee shall submit proof of compliance with the annual work obligations by filing an affidavit therefor and the statement of expenditures and technical report in the prescribed form in support thereof with the Mines Regional Officer concerned within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the end of the year in which the work obligation is required: Provided, That failure of the claimowner to comply therewith for two (2) consecutive years shall constitute automatic abandonment of the mining claim: Provided, further, That, if it is found upon field verification that no such work was actually done on the mining claim, the claimowner/lessee shall likewise automatically lose all his rights thereto notwithstanding submission of the aforesaid documents: Provided, finally, That the Director, in cases of unstable peace and order conditions and/or involvement in mining conflicts may grant further extensions. (Emphasis supplied)

Is there an automatic abandonment with respect to mining claims for failure to file the affidavit of annual work obligations?


No, there is no automatic abandonment with respect to mining claims for failure to file the affidavit of annual work obligations?

The phrase "failure of the claimowner to comply therewith" was referring to the actual work obligations required of the claim owners, and not merely the submission of the proof of the actual work obligations. As explained by Justice Paras in Santiago:

Under the Consolidated Mines Administrative Order (CMAO), implementing PD 463, as amended, the rule that has been consistently applied is that it is the failure to perform the required assessment work, not the failure to file the AAWO that gives rise to abandonment. Interpreted within the context of PD 1902, the last amending decree of PD 463, it is intended, among others, to accelerate the development of our natural resources and to accelerate mineral productions, abandonment under the aforequoted Sec. 27 refers to the failure to perform work obligations which in turn is one of the grounds for the cancellation of the lease contract (Sec. 43(a), Consolidated Mines Administrative Order, implementing PD 463).


3.    When is the cancellation of their mining claims proper?


The cancellation of their mining claims could only be considered proper upon observance of due process, which, according to Yinlu, takes the form of: (1) a written notice of non-compliance to the claim owners and lessees and an ample opportunity to comply; and (2) in the event of the claim owners' and lessees' failure to comply, a written notice effecting the cancellation of their mining claims.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016 The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying          business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other...
Read more

JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Image
G.R. No. 214294 I What is the quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases? The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence - which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." II Are affidavits sufficient to establish substantial evidence in labor cases? Explain.  Yes, in labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings. III What is the weight of an affidavit of witness in labor case? A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, ...
Read more

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...
Read more