THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210187. April 4, 2016.]
BO GO MINING RESOURCES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VICTOR JIN SOO LEE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MARIA FILOMENA SINGH, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 85, QUEZON CITY, AND JDVC RESOURCES CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 4, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210187 (Bo Go Mining Resources Corporation, represented by its president, Victor Jin Soo Lee versus Honorable Maria Filomena Singh, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon City, and JDVC Resources Corporation). — This is a petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Order 2 dated June 7, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 85, in Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-00806-CV, which dismissed the Complaint 3 of Bo Go Mining Resources Corporation 4 (Bo Go) for lack of jurisdiction.
Antecedent Facts
On June 9, 2010, Bo Go was granted a 25-year exclusive right to explore, develop, and utilize mineral deposits over the mineral lands in the Municipalities of Sanchez Mira, Pamplona, Abulug, Ballesteros, Aparri, Buguey, and Gonzaga in Cagayan Province. This was duly registered with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) under the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) No. 338-2010-II-OMR. 5
On November 25, 2011, a Deed of Assignment 6 (deed) was signed and executed by Bo Go, as represented by its President, Victor Jin-Soo Lee, conveying all its rights and interests over MPSA No. 338-2010-II-OMR to JDVC Resources Corporation (JDVC).
Subsequently, JDVC sought the registration of the deed, and the eventual transfer upon it of Bo Go's rights over the MPSA No. 338-2010-II-OMR. This was strongly objected to by Bo Go, claiming among others, that the deed was executed was had because its officers were harassed, intimidated and coerced by the president of JDVC, Hyung Rae Doo. 7
The deed was admitted for registration. On January 27, 2012, it was duly registered with the MGB Regional Office No. II. 8
On January 25, 2013, after finding that "the minimum requirements in the approval of the [deed] were complied with," 9 Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Ramon J.P. Paje issued an Order 10 transferring all the rights and interests of Bo Go in MPSA No. 338-2010-II-OMR to JDVC.
Curiously, while the Order dated January 25, 2013 stated that "MGB RO No. II, thru the Certification issued on 08 May 2012, attested that 'there are no protests/claims to the Deed . . .' executed by and between Bo Go and JDVC involving MPSA No. 338-2010-II-OMR," 11 it also acknowledged that Bo Go, in its Letter dated September 6, 2012, raised such issues as lack of consent and lack of due consideration as basis for its objection over the transfer of its rights to JDVC. As in fact, the DENR even opined that the issues raised by Bo Go are not within its competence to resolve. 12
In the Decision 13 dated May 17, 2013, the DENR denied Bo Go's Motion for Reconsideration 14 and its appeal assailing the act of the MGB Director in accepting JDVC's application for the renewal of the subject exploration permit filed in Bo Go's name.
Aggrieved, Bo Go filed a civil complaint for rescission of deed of assignment with damages before the RTC. However, on June 7, 2013, the RTC issued an Order 15 dismissing the complaint motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction.
Hence this petition. ITAaHc
Basically, Bo Go claims that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding that: (a) its complaint is dismissible for lack of jurisdiction; and (b) a motion to admit amended complaint cannot be allowed when the court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint. 16
Ruling of the Court
The Court resolves to dismiss the petition.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In this case, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the RTC for refusing to take cognizance of the case, or for its motu proprio dismissal of Bo Go's complaint. Indeed, the RTC is correct; by bringing an action for rescission of the deed before it, Bo Go was, in effect, asking the trial court for a relief which is outside of its province to grant. That is, to review and pass upon the acts of the DENR Secretary affirming the order of the MGB Director, and to reinstate it as the holder/awardee of MPSA No. 338-2010-II-OMR, thereby removing JDVC from its position as acknowledged by the DENR. 17
As a matter of usual remedial course, and subject to the provisions of Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 22, Series 2011, the decision of the DENR should have been appealed to the Office of the President. Thereafter, further remedial steps are provided for under Rules 43 and 45.
A perusal of the record shows that Bo Go may indeed have a case. Under Section 46 of DENR A.O. No. 96-40, 18 it is the original contractor or original awardee of the mineral agreement who is required, or entitled, to file an application should it seek a total or partial transfer or assignment of its mineral agreement to a qualified person, and not the other way around. Section 46 of A.O. No. 96-40 reads:
SECTION 46. Transfer or Assignment of Mineral Agreement. — A Contractor may file an application for the total or partial transfer or assignment of its Mineral Agreement to a Qualified Person(s) upon payment of an application fee (Annex 5-A) with the Bureau/concerned Regional Office for evaluation. No application shall be accepted for filing unless accompanied by the pertinent Deed of Assignment that shall contain, among others, a stipulation that the transferee/assignee assumes all obligations of the transferor/assignor under the Agreement. Any transfer or assignment of rights and obligations under any Mineral Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary upon the recommendation of the Director: Provided, That any transfer or assignment of a Mineral Agreement shall not be approved unless the transferor/assignor or Contractor has complied with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the provisions of the Act and these implementing rules and regulations at the time of transfer/assignment: Provided, further, That any transfer or assignment shall be deemed automatically approved if not acted upon by the Secretary within thirty (30) calendar days from official receipt thereof, unless patently unconstitutional, illegal or where such transfer or assignment is violative of pertinent rules and regulations: Provided, finally, That the transferee assumes all the obligations and responsibilities of the transferor/assignor under the Mineral Agreement.
Accordingly, Bo Go's objection should be enough to forestall the transfer of its rights and interests in MPSA No. 338-2010-II-OMR to JDVC.
At any rate, while the Court commiserates with Bo Go, it cannot, as yet, rule on the controversy. Verily, Bo Go only has itself to blame for having availed the wrong remedy.
Under Chapter XIX of A.O. No. 96-40, remedial measures are provided to address, among others, "disputes involving rights to mining areas." They fall under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Panel of Arbitrators. 19 A party aggrieved by the decision of the Panel of Arbitrators can elevate his case to the Mines Adjudication Board. 20 Under Section 211 of A.O. No. 96-40, it is only after the Mines Adjudication Board decides a case, can an aggrieved party file a petition for review before this Court.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court, finding no grave abuse of discretion, resolves to DISMISS the petition of Bo Go Mining Resources Corporation." CHTAIc
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 4-16.
2. Issued by Presiding Judge Maria Filomena D. Singh; id. at 19-21.
3. Id. at 111-125.
4. Bo Go Resources Mining Corporation in other parts of the records.
5. Rollo, pp. 65-87.
6. Id. at 89-90.
7. Id. at 112.
8. Id. at 91.
9. Id. at 92.
10. Id. at 92-93.
11. Id. at 93.
12. Id. at 92.
13. Issued by Atty. Anselmo C. Abangan, Officer-in-Charge, Assistant Secretary for Legal Services; id. at 105-110.
14. Id. at 94-97.
15. Id. at 19-21.
16. Id. at 7-8.
17. Id. at 21.
18. REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7942, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "PHILIPPINE MINING ACT OF 1995."
19. A.O. No. 96-40, Section 202.
20. A.O. No. 96-40, Section 206.