|
By William B. Depasupil, Reporter
THE Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the
validity of the mining claims of Olympic Mines and Development Corp.
over 2,212 hectares of land in the province of Palawan.
The CA 12th Division, in a 23-page decision
penned by Associate Justice Ramon Garcia, dismissed the bid of
Itawes Mining Exploration to conduct mining operations in San
Isidro, Narra, Palawan and Pulot, Espanola, Palawan, which were
previously covered by the mining contracts of Atlantic City
Exploration, Mondo Exploration Corp. and Toronto Exploration Corp.
The three mining firms, however, transferred
their rights and interests on all their mining claims to Olympic on
May 8, 1996. Olympic transferred its rights over the said areas on
June 9, 2006, to its successor-in-interest Citinickel Mines and
Development Corp.
The appellate court, however, said it couldn’t
grant the petition of Itawes seeking to cancel the Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to Citinickel on January 3,
2007 for being contrary to law.
The CA noted that its jurisdiction in a petition
for review is confined only to issues that were raised before a
quasi-judicial body, or in this case, the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB).
“The Court’s appellate review, therefore, is
limited only to the errors of fact and law that may have been
committed by the said body. We cannot take cognizance of factual
matters that were not raised before the administrative body, in this
instance, the Mines Adjudication Board,” the CA said.
It stressed that the main issue brought before
the adjudication board and now the subject of the petition for
review, is whether or not the MPSA applications or respondent
Olympic are valid and subsisting.
In assailing the decision of the board, Itawes
argued that it was deprived of due process of law when the board
affirmed the decision of the panel of arbitrators of the DENR-Mines
and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) finding its applications for MPSA over
the subject mining areas null and void and upholding the validity of
Olympic’s application.
The Court of Appeals noted that Itawes actively
participated in the proceedings both before the panel of arbitrators
and the MAB. The Court of Appeals added that the petitioner even
submitted its position papers, memorandum and pieces of documentary
evidence in support of its claim.
The CA also found no merit on the petitioner’s
insistence that the panel of arbitrators and MAB should have not
admitted as evidence the three separate deeds of assignment since
these were spurious and mere fabrications.
The CA said the panel of arbitrators has no
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the deeds of assignments
since its mandate is confined only to the adjudication of mining
cases that concern matters that are purely administrative in nature.
Records showed that in August 26 and August 30,
Itawes filed two separate applications for exploration permit over
areas covered by the mining lease contracts of Atlantic, Mondo and
Toronto, which was covered in the MPSA applications of Olympic.
On August 31, 2005, Itawes filed before the
panel of arbitrators a petition seeking to declare null and void
Olympic’s applications for MPSA.
In a resolution dated May 16, 2006, the panel of
arbitrators declared Itawes’ applications null and void while
Olympic’s applications were declared valid.
The MAB affirmed the said resolution, prompting
Itawes to elevate the case before the CA.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate
Justices Juan Enriquez Jr. and Isaias Dicdican.
|
