View full case

APO CEMENT CORPORATION v. MINGSON MINING INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

FACTS:

Petitioner Apo Cement Corporation (Apocemco) and respondent Mingson Mining Industries Corporation (Mingson) were involved in a dispute regarding mining claims known as "Allied 1 and 2" and "Lapulapu 31 and 32". Apocemco submitted a proposal to take over the mining claims from the current holder, Luvimin Cebu Mining Corporation (Luvimin), due to the alleged failure of the old locators to develop and put the mineral properties to productive use. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) declared the subject mining claims abandoned and open for location to other parties. Mingson opposed the declarations, claiming that its own mining claims, "Yellow Eagle I to VII," overlapped with the subject mining claims.

The DENR Regional Office initially awarded portions of the subject mining claims to Mingson but, upon Apocemco's motion for reconsideration, the Legal Division recommended that the claims be awarded to Apocemco, subject to the outcome of Luvimin's appeal. The DENR Regional Director affirmed this resolution, but the matter was still subject to review by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 7 - Panel of Arbitrators (POA). The POA subsequently upheld the resolution without requiring the parties to file any pleading or setting a hearing.

Mingson appealed the POA's decision to the DENR Mines Adjudication Board (MAB), arguing that it was not given the opportunity to be heard and claiming denial of due process. The MAB granted Mingson's appeal, finding that Mingson's due process rights were violated, which rendered the POA's decision null and void.

Apocemco appealed the MAB's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA dismissed the appeal based on the lack of due process and the failure to comply with the rules of court regarding the appeal. Apocemco's motion for reconsideration was also denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the CA correctly dismissed Apocemco's appeal.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the ruling of the CA. The Court held that the POA violated the parties' right to due process by proceeding with the resolution of the mining dispute without affording them the opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that the violation of due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which renders a decision void for lack of jurisdiction.

  2. The Court also clarified that the DENR MAB did not err in considering the due process issue, even though it was not explicitly raised in Mingson's initial appeal. The lack of formal procedure on appeals at that time allowed the DENR MAB to consider Mingson's letter and the issues raised therein as part of the appeal. The Court further stated that due process is a jurisdictional requirement that all tribunals, administrative or judicial, must observe, and the lack thereof can be raised at any time.

  3. n addition to the lack of due process, Apocemco's failure to comply with the rules of court regarding the appeal also contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.

  4. Thus, the petition was denied, and the CA's decision was affirmed.