LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. vs.

WMC
RESOURCES INTL. PTY. LTD,. WMC PHILIPPINES, INC.
and SAGUITTARIUS MINES, INC.
G.R No. 162331, November 20, 2006
FACTS:
The Philippine Government and WMC Philippines, the
local
wholly-owned
subsidiary
of
WMC
Resources
International Pty. Ltd. executed a Financial and Technical
Assistance Agreement, denominated as the Columbio FTAA
No. 02-95-XI for the purpose of large scale exploration,
development, and commercial exploration of possible
mineral resources in an initial contract area of 99,387
hectares located in the provinces of South Cotabato, Sultan
Kudarat, Davao del Sur, and North Cotabato in accordance
with Executive Order No. 279 and Department Administrative
Order No. 63, Series of 1991. The Columbio FTAA is covered
in part by 156 mining claims held under various Mineral
Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA) by Southcot Mining
Corporation, Tampakan Mining Corporation, and Sagittarius
Mines, Inc., in accordance with the Tampakan Option
Agreement entered into by WMC Philippines and the
Tampakan Companies on 25 April 1991, as amended, for
purposes of exploration of the mining claims in Tampakan,
South Cotabato.
The Option Agreement, among other things, provides
for the grant of the right of first refusal to the Tampakan
Companies in case WMC Philippines desires to dispose of its
rights and interests in the mining claims covering the area
subject of the agreement.
WMC Resources subsequently divested itself of its
rights and interests in the Columbio FTAA, and on 12 July
2000 executed a Sale and Purchase Agreement with
petitioner Lepanto over its entire shareholdings in WMC
Philippines, subject to the exercise of the Tampakan
Companies exercise of their right of first refusal to purchase
the subject shares. On 28 August 2000, petitioner sought
the approval of the 12 July 2000 Agreement from the DENR
Secretary.
In the interim, on 10 January 2001, contending that the
12 July Agreement between petitioner and WMC Philippines

had expired due to failure to meet the necessary

preconditions for its validity, WMC Resources and the
Tampakan Companies executed another Sale and Purchase
Agreement, where Sagittarius Mines, Inc. was designated
assignee and corporate vehicle which would acquire the
shareholdings and undertake the Columbio FTAA activities.
On 15 January 2001, Sagittarius Mines, Inc. increased its
authorized capitalization to P250 million.
Subsequently,
WMC Resources and Sagittarius Mines, Inc. executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale of Shares of Stocks on 23 January 2001.
After due consideration and evaluation of the financial
and technical qualifications of Sagittarius Mines, Inc., the
DENR Secretary approved the transfer of the Columbio FTAA
from WMC Philippines to Sagittarius Mines, Inc. in the
assailed Order. According to said Order, pursuant to Section
66 of Department Administrative Order No. 96-40, as
amended, Sagittarius Mines, Inc. meets the qualification
requirements as Contractor-Transferee of FTAA No. 02-95-XI,
and that the application for transfer of said FTAA went thru
the procedure and other requirements set forth under the
law.
Aggrieved by the transfer of the Columbio FTAA in favor
of Sagittarius Mines, Inc., petitioner filed a Petition for
Review of the Order of the DENR Secretary with the Office of
the President.
Petitioner assails the validity of the 18
December 2001 Order of the Secretary of the DENR
approving the application for and the consequent
registration of FTAA No. 02-95-XI from WMC Philippines to
Sagittarius Mines, Inc. on the ground that: it violates the
constitutional right of Lepanto to due process; it preempts
the resolution of very crucial legal issues pending with the
regular courts; and it blatantly violates Section 40 of the
Mining Act.
The Office of the President dismissed the petition
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine Mining Act of 1995,
particularly Section 40 thereof requiring the approval of the
President of the assignment or transfer of financial or
technical assistance agreements should have a retroactive
application to the Columbio FTAA.
HELD:

No. Applying the above-cited law retroactively would

contradict the established legal doctrine that statutes are to
be construed as having only a prospective operation unless
the contrary is expressly stated or necessarily implied from
the language used in the law.
In the case at bar, there is an absence of either an
express declaration or an implication in the Philippine Mining
Act of 1995 that the provisions of said law shall be made to
apply retroactively, therefore, any section of said law must
be made to apply only prospectively, in view of the rule that
a statute ought not to receive a construction making it act
retroactively, unless the words used are so clear, strong, and
imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them,
or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise
satisfied.

JOHN ERIC LONEY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners are the President and Chief Executive
Officer, Senior Manager, and Resident Manager for Mining
Operations, of Marcopper Mining Corporation, a corporation
engaged in mining in the province of Marinduque. Marcopper
had been storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt.
Tapian, Marinduque. At the base of the pit ran a drainage
tunnel leading to the Boac and Makalupnit rivers. It appears
that Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the tunnels
end. On 24 March 1994, tailings gushed out of or near the
tunnels end.
In a few days, the Mt. Tapian pit had
discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac and
Makalupnit rivers.
In August 1996, the Department of Justice separately
charged petitioners in the MTC of Boac, Marinduque with
violation of P.D No. 1067 or the Water Code of the
Philippines, the National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 or
PD 984, the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 or RA 7942, and
Article 365 of the RPC for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property. Petitioners moved to quash the
Informations.
The MTC is convinced that as far as the three aforesaid
laws are concerned, only the Information for violation of
Philippine Mining Act should be maintained and the
Information for violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code should also be maintained and heard in a full blown
trial because the common accusation therein is reckless
imprudence resulting to damage to property. It is the
damage to property which the law punishes not the
negligent act of polluting the water system. The prosecution
for the violation of Philippine Mining Act is not a bar to the
prosecution for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property.

Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari

with the RTC. For its part, public respondent filed an ordinary
appeal with the same court assailing that portion of the
Consolidated Order quashing the Information for violation of
PD 1067 and PD 984. RTC granted public respondents
appeal but denied petitioners petition.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA
alleging that they should only be prosecuted for violation of
Article 365 of the RPC.
Court of Appeals affirmed RTCs ruling. It held: The
doctrine laid down in the Relova case does not squarely
apply to the case at Bench since the Information filed
against the petitioners are for violation of four separate and
distinct laws which are national in character.
Petitioners sought reconsideration but the Court of
Appeals denied their motion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in finding that it is proper to
file several charges and RTSs ruling, as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, contravenes People v. Relova.
HELD:
The Filing of Several Charges is proper.
In R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), the additional fact
that must be established is the willful violation and gross
neglect on the part of the accused to abide by the terms and
conditions of the Environmental Compliance Certificate,
particularly that the Marcopper should ensure the
containment of run-off and silt materials from reaching the
Mogpog and Boac Rivers. If there was no violation or
neglect, and that the accused satisfactorily proved that
Marcopper had done everything to ensure containment of
the run-off and silt materials, they will not be liable. It does
not follow, however, that they cannot be prosecuted under
the Water Code, Anti-Pollution Law and the Revised Penal
Code because violation of the Environmental Compliance
Certificate is not an essential element of these laws.
People v. Relova not in point. Petitioners cite the Courts
statement in Relova that the law seeks to prevent
harassment of the accused by multiple prosecutions for

offenses which though different from one another are

nonetheless each constituted by a common set or
overlapping sets of technical elements.
This contention is without merit. Relova is no authority
for petitioners claim against multiple prosecutions based on
a single act not only because the question of double
jeopardy is not at issue here, but also because, as the Court
of Appeals held, petitioners are being prosecuted for an act
or incident punished by four national statutes and not by an
ordinance and a national statute. In short, petitioners, if
ever, fall under the first sentence of Section 21, Article III
which prohibits multiple prosecution for the same offense,
and not, as in Relova, for offenses arising from the same
incident.

PICOP RESOURCES. INC. vs BASE METALS MINERALS

RESOUCES CORPORATION AND THE MINES
ADJUDICATION BOARD
G.R. No. 16350, December 6, 2006
FACTS:
In 1987, the Central Mindanao Mining and Development
Corporation (CMMCI) entered into a Mines Operating
Agreement with Banahaw Mining and Development
Corporation whereby the latter agreed to act as Mine
Operator for the exploration, development, and eventual
commercial operation of CMMCI's 18 mining claims located
in Agusan del Sur. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement,
Banahaw Mining filed applications for Mining Lease Contracts
over the mining claims with the Bureau of Mines. On April 29,
1988, Banahaw Mining was issued a Mines Temporary Permit
authorizing it to extract and dispose of precious minerals
found within its mining claims. Since a portion of Banahaw
Mining's mining claims was located in petitioner PICOP's
logging concession in Agusan del Sur, Banahaw Mining and
petitioner PICOP entered into a MOA whereby petitioner
PICOP allowed Banahaw Mining an access to its mining
claims. In 1991, Banahaw Mining converted its mining claims
to applications for Mineral Production Sharing Agreements.
While the MPSA were pending, Banahaw Mining, on
December 18, 1996, decided to sell/assign its rights and
interests over 37 mining claims in favor of private
respondent Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation. The
transfer included those covered by its mining operating
agreement with CMMCI. Upon being informed of the
development, CMMCI, as claim owner, immediately approved
the assignment made by Banahaw Mining in favor of private
respondent Base Metals, thereby recognizing private
respondent Base Metals as the new operator of its claims. On
March 10, 1997, private respondent Base Metals amended
Banahaw Mining's pending MPSA applications with the
Bureau of Mines to substitute itself as applicant and to
submit additional documents in support of the application.
Area clearances from the DENR Regional Director and
Superintendent of the Agusan Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary
were submitted, as required.
On November 18, 1997, petitioner PICOP filed with the
MGB, an Opposition to private respondent Base Metals'

application because it violate the non-impairment clause and

will be prejudicial to herein petitioner. The Panel Arbitrator
initially ruled for petitioner, but upon appeal to the Mines
Adjudication Board, judgment was in favor of respondent, CA
affirmed stating that the Presidential Warranty of September
25, 1968 issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos
merely confirmed the timber license granted to PICOP and
warranted the latter's peaceful and adequate possession and
enjoyment of its concession areas. It was only given upon
the request of the Board of Investments to establish the
boundaries of PICOP's timber license agreement. The
Presidential Warranty did not convert PICOP's timber license
into a contract because it did not create any obligation on
the part of the government in favor of PICOP. Thus, the nonimpairment clause finds no application.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the concession area of petitioner is
closed to mining activities and that the conversion of the
agreement into MPSA will run counter to the non-impairment
clause of the Constitution.
HELD:
No, a TLA is not a contract, but a mere privilege. The
policy of multiple land use is enshrined in our laws towards
the end that the country's natural resources may be
rationally explored, developed, utilized and conserved. RA
7942, gives a mining contractor the right to enter a timber
concession and cut timber therein provided that the surface
owner or concessionaire shall be properly compensated for
any damage done to the property as a consequence of
mining operations.
Firstly, assuming that the area covered by Base Metals'
MPSA is a government reservation, such does not necessarily
preclude mining activities in the area. Sec. 15(b) of DAO 9640 provides that government reservations may be opened
for mining applications upon prior written clearance by the
government
agency
having
jurisdiction
over
such
reservation.
Secondly, RA 7942 does not disallow mining
applications in all forest reserves but only those proclaimed
as watershed forest reserves. There is no evidence that the
area covered by Base Metals' MPSA has been proclaimed as
watershed forest reserves. DAO No. 03-98, provides that
timber or forest lands, military and other government

reservations, forest reservations, forest reserves other than

critical watershed, and existing DENR Project Areas are open
to mining applications subject to area status and clearance.
Lastly, PICOP failed to present any evidence that the
area covered by the MPSA is a protected wilderness area
designated as an initial component of the NIPAS pursuant to
a law, presidential decree, presidential proclamation or
executive order as required by RA 7586.
MARCOPPER MINING COPORATION
vs. ALBERTO BUMOLO
G.R NO. 139548, December 22, 2000
FACTS:
MARCOPPER registered its mining claims in Pao, Kasibu,
Nueva Vizcaya with the DENR from February 2, 1982 to
October 12, 1982. Private respondents Alberto G. Bumolo
and others registered their mining claims in the same area
from July 28, 1981 to September 22, 1988, which claims
were subsequently converted into Mineral Production
Sharing Agreements (MPSA).
On March 12, 1982 petitioner entered into Option
Agreements over the mining.
Under the Agreements,
petitioner was granted the exclusive and irrevocable right to
explore the mining claims for three years with provision for
extension.
On December 23, 1982 and March 26, 1987 petitioner
filed Prospecting Permit Applications (PPA) with the Bureau of
Forest Development, DENR, on the alleged ground that a
portion of the area covered by the mining claims was within
the Magat River Forest Reservation under Proc. 573 of June
26, 1969 and with DAR on account of alleged coverage of
the other portion within the Nueva Vizcaya-Quirino Civil
Reservation under Proc. 1498 of 11 September 1975.
On 15 July 1991 Executive Director Paat rejected
petitioners PPA on the ground that the Memorandum of July
08, 1991 endorsed by the Regional Technical Director for
Mines revealed that the area covered was outside
government reservation; that the prospect claim was in
conflict with existing claims; and, that the area had been
extensively explored in the early 1980's.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration.

Regional
Executive Director Paragas recommended to the DENR
Secretary that petitioner's request for reconsideration be
denied; that the existing rights of mining
claim holders
be respected; and, that the prior legal rights of
MPSA/Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
applicants over subject area be recognized.
As regards petitioner's PPA filed with the DAR, it
appeared that it was issued a clearance to prospect for six
months from December 11, 1995.
On August 15, 1997 petitioner appealed to public
respondent Mines Adjudication Board. Petitioner maintained
that subject area was within the Magat River Forest
Reservation. On June 11, 1998 the rejection of the PPA was
affirmed whereas the mining claims of respondents Alberto
G. Bumolo et al. that had been converted into a MPSA,
subject to compliance with R.A. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40,
were given due course.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent MAB erred in finding that the area
subject of the PPA was outside the Magat River Forest
Reservation.
HELD:
Respondent MAB correctly upheld the ratiocination of
Regional Executive Director Paragas in denying petitioner's
PPA.
The circumstance that the area covered by petitioner's
PPA is outside the Magat River Forest Reservation has been
adequately established by the following evidence: (a)
confirmation as early as 31 May 1989 by the Forest
Engineering Section of Tuguegarao, Cagayan; (b) the 8 July
1991 Memorandum Report of Regional Technical Director
Punsal Jr.; and, (c) plotting provided by the National Mapping
and Resources Information Authority per its 2 June 1995
endorsement of the maps to the office of the Regional
Executive Director.
Petitioner contests the exclusion of the area subject of
its PPA within the Magat River Forest Reservation based
merely on the alleged "typographical error committed by
somebody in the Engineering Section of the DENR." Aside

from the fact that the allegation does not have anything to
support it, the aforementioned documents which the
Regional Executive Directors relied upon in denying the PPA
had already settled the issue.

SANTA ROSA MINING COMPANY, INC. vs. HON.

MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES JOSE LEIDO, JR.
G.R No. L-49109, December 1, 1987
FACTS:
Presidential Decree No.1214 was issued requiring
holders of subsisting and valid patentable mining claims
located under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 to
file a mining lease of application within one year from the
approval of the Decree. To protect its rights, petitioner Santa
Rosa Mining Company files a special civil action for certiorari
and prohibition confronting the said Decree as
unconstitutional in that it amounts to a deprivation of
property without due process of law. Subsequently, three
days after, petitioner filed a mining lease application, but
under protest, with a reservation that it is not waiving its
rights over its mining claims until the validity of the Decree
shall have been passed upon by the Court.
The respondents allege that petitioner has no standing
to file the instant petition and question the Decree as it
failed to fully exhaust administrative remedies.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 1214 is
constitutional.
HELD:
Yes, Presidential Decree No. 1214 is constitutional, even
assuming arguendo that petitioners was not bound to
exhaust administrative remedies for its mining claims to be
valid in the outset. It is a valid exercise of the sovereign

power of the State, as owner, over the lands of the public

domain, of which petitioners mining claims still form a part.
Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 1214 is in accord with Sec.
8, Art XIV of the 1937 Constitution.

SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORPORATION

vs. BALITE PORTAL MINING COOPERATIBE, et. al
G.R No. 135190, April 3, 2002
FACTS:
The case involves a rich tract of mineral land situated in
the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve known as the
Diwalwal Gold Rush Area located at Mt.Diwata in Davao del
Norte.
On March 10, 1988, Marcopper Mining Corporation was
granted Exploration Permit no. 133 over 4,491ha of land,
which included the hotly-contested Diwalwal are.
On June 27, 1991, Congress Enacted RA. 7076 or the
Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act. This law established a
Peopls Small-Scale Mining Program to be implemented by
the Sec. of DENR and created the Provincial Mining
Regulatory Board (PMRB) under the DENR Secretarys direct
supervision. The law authorized PMRB to declare and set
aside small-scale mining areas subject to review by DENR
Sec. and award mining contracts to small-scale miners.
On December 21, 1991, DENR Sec. Factoran issued DAO
No. 66, declaring 729ha of the Diwalwal area as non-forest
land open to small-scale mining.
On June 24, 1997, Factoran issued Memorandum Order
No. 97-03 which directs the DENR to study thoroughly the
option of direct state utilization of the mineral resources in
the Diwalwal Gold-Rush Area. It includes the studying and
weighing the feasibility of entering into management
agreements or operating agreements, with appropriate
government or private entities, or both, in carrying out the
declared policy of rationalizing the mining operations in the
Diwalwal area; such agreement shall include provisions for

profit-sharing between the state and the said parties,

including profit-sharing arrangements with small-scale
miners, as well as the payment of royalties to indigenous
cultural communities. The USec for Field Operations and
USec for Legal and Legislative Affairs and Attached agencies,
and Dir. of MGB are hereby ordered to underyake such
studies.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus before CA against PMRB-Davao,
the DENR Sec and Balite Communal Portal Mining
Cooperative, which represented all the OTP grantees. It
prayed for the nullification of the above-quited Memorandum
Order No. 97-03 on the ground that the direst state
utilization espoused therein would effectively impair its
vested rights under EP No. 133.
CA dismissed the petition. Accordingly, Memorandum
Order No. 97-03 was merely a directive to conduct studies on
the various options available to the government for solving
Diwalwal conflict.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred when it concludes that the
assailed memorandum order did not adopt the direct state
utilization scheme in resolving the Diwalwal conflict.
HELD:
No. MO 97-03 did not conclusively adopt direct state
utilization as a policy in resolving the Diwalwal conflict.
The terms of the memorandum clearly indicate that
what was directed thereunder was merely a study of this
option and nothing else. Contrary to petitioners contention,
it did not grant any management/operating or profit-sharing
agreement to small-scale miners or to any party, but simply
instructed the DENR Officials concerned to undertake studies
to determine its feasibility.

SJS vs. ATIENZA

G.R No. 156052, February 13, 2008
FACTS:
On November 20, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlunsod of
Manila enacted Ordinance no. 8027 which reclassified the
areas of Pandacan, Sta Ana and its adjoining areas from
Industrial II to Commercial I. This was done in order to
promote sound urban planning and to ensure the health,
public safety and general welfare of the residents affected.
The ordinance ordered business owners and operators
within the affected area to cease their operations within the
six month period stated by the Ordinance No. 8027.
However, due to the agreement between the Department of
Energy (DOE) and the city of manila, a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) was made which enabled the
Pandacan oil depots of Shell and Caltex to only scale down
their property and still continue operations, this MOU was
only effective for another six months, and was extended until
2003.
The petitioners filed a mandamus in the SC urging the
city of Manila to implement Ordinance No. 8027, the
respondents answer was that the ordinance has been
superseded by the MOU and that its resolution was a
guideline to the ordinance.
ISSUES:
1 Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to
enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of
the Pandacan Terminals?
HELD:

1.Yes, the respondent has the mandatory legal duty to

enforce the ordinance because under the Local Government
Code, the city mayor has to "enforce all laws and ordinances
relative to the governance of the city." One of these is
Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city, he
has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has
not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the
courts. He has no other choice. It is his ministerial duty to do
so.
MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
G.R No. 171947-48
FACTS:
The complaint by the residents alleged that the water
quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable
standards set by law, especially PD 1152. All defendants
(public officials0 must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and
collectively ordered to clean up Mnaila Bay and to restore its
water quality to class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and
other forms of contact recreation.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioners be compelled by mandamus
to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.
HELD:
The cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be
compelled by mandamus. While the implementation of the
MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing
what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and
may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other judicial
discipline describes as continuing mandamus, the Court
may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives
with the end in view ensuring that its decision would not be
set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference