Case Digest PEARSON vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, G.R. No. 74454 September 3, 1998

.ALFRED PEARSON, for himself and as the attorney-in-fact of his co-heirs/co-successors-in-interest, namely: ELSIE PEARSON-FUENTES, HENRY PEARSON, WILLIAM PEARSON, JR., ROBERT PEARSON, EDUARD PEARSON, CHARLES PEARSON, FREDRIECH PEARSON and HARRY F. GASSER, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Hon. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 155, Pasig, Metro Manila, Hon. Presidential Executive Assistant; Hon. Minister of Natural Resources; Hon. Director of Mines; DIAMOND MINING CORPORATION, ROSARIO MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and A. SORIANO CORPORATION, respondents.

G.R. No. 74454 September 3, 1998

 Case Digest

Director of Mines in Mines Administrative Case Nos. V-817 and V-818, upholding the preferential rights of private respondents to lease, possess, explore and develop their respective "DIAMOND" and "MARTIN" mining claims in question;

In his decision, the Director held that appellants (petitioners) failed to establish the existence of the conflict among the placer claims involved; that the "BAROBO" placer claims are null and void because their tie points, as described in the affidavits to reconstitute the declarations of location therefor, are not the natural objects of permanent monuments prescribed under the law and their geographical positions cannot be accurately determined; that, even if said "BAROBO" claims were validly located, the same have been abandoned due to the failure of the original locators thereof to perform assessment works therein, to file the corresponding affidavits of annual work obligations, and to pay the real estate taxes thereon; and that appellants (petitioners) are not the successors-in-interest of the Tambis Gold Dredging Co., Inc., hence they have no legal personality to institute the adverse claims. ⁸

In a Decision dated August 31, 1981, the Office of the President revoked the order allowing ocular inspection, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, and released all monies that might have been deposited by the Mining Companies

Issues:

1.Whether or not respondent IAC committed reversible error in assuming jurisdiction over the private respondents' petition for certiorari assailing the trial court's interlocutory orders?

We find the petition entirely devoid of merit. Thus we see, in regard to the first principal issue, no reversible error committed by the IAC when it assumed jurisdiction over private respondents' petition for certiorari involving interlocutory orders of the trial court.

we find that respondent appellate court correctly assumed jurisdiction over CA-G.R. No. 15439.

It has also been emphasized in a number of cases ²⁸ that while this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts (for writs enforceable within their respective regions), to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the litigants are well advised against taking a direct recourse to this Court. Instead, they should initially seek the proper relief from the lower courts. As a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is concurrently within the competence of the CA or RTC, litigants must observe the principle of hierarchy of courts. This Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary, or where serious and important reasons therefor exist.

Secondly, petitioner's contention that the lower court's orders of October 15, 1982 and December 21, 1982, being merely interlocutory, are not correctible by certiorari, ignores this Court's consistent ruling, to wit:

On the procedural issues raised, we hold that where an interlocutory order was allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such order may be questioned before the Court on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. To delay the review of the order until the appeal from the decision of the main case would not afford the party adversely affected by the said order a speedy, plain and adequate remedy. ²⁹

In Marcelo vs. De Guzman, ³⁰ we held that although, as a general rule, an interlocutory order is not appealable until after the rendition of the judgment on the merits, an exception is made where the remedy of appeal cannot afford an adequate and expeditious relief. Does the controversy at hand fall under the exception where interlocutory orders may be the subject of a petition for certiorari in the IAC? In our view, it does. For the trial court clearly acted outside of its jurisdiction when it issued the assailed orders creating the Ad Hoc Committee and scheduling the ocular inspection.

To begin with the lower court did not have jurisdiction over the mining dispute. With the issuance of Presidential Decree Nos. 99-A, 309, and 463, ³³ the procedure of adjudicating conflicting mining claims has been made completely administrative in character, with the President as the final appeal authority. ³⁴ Section 50 of P.D. 463, providing for a modernized system of administration and disposition of mineral lands, to promote and encourage the development and exploitation thereof, mandates on the matter of "Protests, Adverse Claims and Appeals," the following procedure:

Appeals — Any party not satisfied with the decision or order of the Director may, within five (5) days from receipt there of appeal to the Secretary. Decisions of the Secretary are likewise appealable within five (5) days from receipt thereof by the affected party to the President of the Philippines whose decision shall be final and executory.

It should be noted that before its amendment, the Mining Law (C.A. No. 137) required that after the filing of adverse claim with the Bureau of Mines, the adverse claimant had to go to a court of competent jurisdiction for the settlement of the claim. With the amendment seeking to expedite the resolution of mining conflicts, the Director of Mines became the mandatory adjudicator of adverse claims, instead of the Court of First instance. ³⁵ Thus, it cannot escape notice that under Section 61 of the Mining Law, as amended by Republic Act Nos. 746 and 4388, appeals from the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (then Minister of Natural Resources) on conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations may be made to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court as the case may be. In contrast, under the decrees issued at the onset of martial law, it has been expressly provided that the decisions of the same Secretary in mining cases are appealable to the President of the Philippines under Section 50 of the Mineral Resources Development Decree of 1974 (P.D. No. 463) and Section 7 of P.D. No. 1281 in relation to P.D. No. 309. ³⁶

The trend at present is to make the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter. ³⁷ This does not mean that administrative bodies have complete rein over mining disputes. The very terms of Section 73 of the Mining Law, as amended by R.A. No. 4388, in requiring that the adverse claim must "state in full detail the nature, boundaries and extent of the adverse claim" show that the conflicts to be decided by reason of such adverse claim refer primarily to questions of fact. The controversies to be submitted and resolved by the Director of Mines under the sections referred only to the overlapping of claims and administrative matters incidental thereto. ³⁸ Questions and controversies that are judicial, not administrative, in nature can be resolved only by the regular courts in whom is vested the judicial power to resolve and adjudicate such civil disputes and controversies between litigants in accordance with the established norms of law and justice. ³⁹ Decisions of the Supreme Court on mining disputes have recognized a distinction between (1) the primary powers granted by pertinent provisions of law to the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (and the bureau directors) of an executive or administrative nature, such as "granting of license, permits, lease and contracts, or approving, rejecting, reinstating or cancelling applications, or deciding conflicting applications," and (2) controversies or disagreements of civil or contractual nature between litigants which are questions of a judicial nature that may be adjudicated only by the courts of justice. ⁴⁰

This distinction is carried on even under the present law. ⁴¹ Findings of fact by the Mines Adjudication Board, which exercises appellate jurisdiction over decisions or orders of the panel of arbitrators, shall be conclusive and binding on the parties, and its decision or order shall be final and executory. ⁴² But resort to the appropriate court, through a petition for review by certiorari, involving questions of law, may be made within thirty days from the receipt of the order or decision of the Mines Adjudication Board. ⁴³

2. Assuming the IAC had validly assumed jurisdiction, whether or not it committed reversible errors of law in its decision now before us?

As found by the IAC:

It will not be amiss to state here that the basis of abandonment of the Pearsons of their mining claims is well established by the evidence already presented to the Bureau of Mines and to the Ministry of Natural Resources. We need only to refer to the following reasons found in the decision of the Ministry of Natural Resources, dated October 29, 1975, to wit:

. . . assuming, in gratia argumentis, that the "BAROBO" placer claims were validly located, said claims have been abandoned for failure of the claim owners thereof to conduct works therein, to file the affidavits of annual work obligations, and to pay the real estate taxes.

The evidence indicate that affidavits of annual assessment works have been filed for the "BAROBO-2" to "BAROBO-5" placer claims from 1946 to 1951. However, the affidavits for the years 1957 to 1974, respectively were all filed only on April 8, 1975. Thus, during the latter years, no proof was submitted to show compliance with the annual assessment works. So, at the time the "DIAMOND" and "MARTIN" placer claims were located and registered, the "BAROBO" claims had already been deemed abandoned and the areas covered thereby open to relocation."

Said decision also took into account Executive Order No. 141, dated August 1, 1968, which provides:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the vested in me by law, do hereby declare unpatented mining claims which were located more than thirty years ago under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902, as amended, and which had not complied with the annual assessment requirement, as abandoned and their declaration of location cancelled. ⁴⁴

Well established is the rule that findings of fact made in the decision of the Minister of Natural Resources (then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources) appealed from will not be reviewed by this Court unless there has been a grave abuse of discretion in making said findings by reason of the total absence of competent evidence in support thereof. ⁴⁵ As shown above, the public officials' judgments are well supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, by the Pearsons' own admission, they failed to file the affidavit of annual assessment works and to pay the real estate taxes from 1957-1974, which were filed and paid only later in 1974. ⁴⁶

In Santa Rosa Mining Co. vs. Hon Minister of Natural Resources Jose Leido, Jr. and Director of Mines Juanito Fernandez ⁴⁷, this Court held that while it is recognized that the right of a locator of a mining claim is a property right, such right is not absolute. It is merely a possessory right, more so where petitioner's claims are still unpatented. Mere location does not mean absolute ownership over the affected land or located claim. It merely segregates the located land or area from the public domain by barring other would-be locators from locating the same and appropriating for themselves the minerals found therein. To rule otherwise would imply the location is all that is needed to acquire and maintain rights over a located mining claim. This cannot be approved or sanctioned because it is contrary to the intention of the lawmaker that the locator should faithfully and consistently comply with the requirement for annual works and improvements in the located mining claims. ⁴⁸ Not only should there be a valid and subsisting location of the mineral land but also there should be, thereafter, continuous compliance with all the requirements of law such as the performance of annual assessment works and payment of real estate taxes. ⁴⁹

While it is understandable that petitioners would want this Court to reassess the evidence presented before the mining officials to support their plea of not having abandoned the mining claim involved, this cannot be done now in this proceeding, for this Court is not a trier of facts. Moreover, we find no cogent, much less compelling, reason to depart from established practice and precedents. For where, as in the case at bar, there is no showing that there was fraud, collusion, arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of the Office of the President or a department head in rendering a questioned decision; nor a total lack of substantial evidence to support their administrative decisions, their factual findings and conclusions are entitled to great weight and respect, and will not be interfered with. ⁵⁰

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, and the assailed Orders and Decisions, particularly the Decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. 15439, including the Order of dismissal of Civil Case No. 45053, are hereby AFFIRMED.