Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Apo Cement v. Mingson Case Digest

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

CASE TITLE RECIT READY FACTS & ISSUE HELD

Apo Cement Corp. This is a case involving In a dispute involving YES. Implementing
v. Mingson Mining disputed mining claims. Apo mining claims of Allied 1 & Rules of the Philippine
Industries Corp. Cement wished to take over 2 and Lapulapu 31 &32 Mining Act of 1995,
mining claims of certain Apo Cement submitted a clearly require that the
[I called dibs!!! areas that overlapped with Mineral Production Sharing parties involved in
portions of the claims of Agreement to the DENR, mining disputes be given
Also, I deserve to Mingson. The case was seeking to take over their the opportunity to be
share my side of eventually brought to the current holder, Luvimin. heard.
the story] Panel of Arbitrators (POA), Mingson assailed the The violation of a
which is mandated to aforementioned partys right to due
reconcile disputes. declarations on the ground process raises a serious
However, the POA upheld a that its own mining claims, jurisdictional issue,
resolution in favor of Apo i.e., Yellow Eagle I to VII, which cannot be glossed
Cement without requiring overlapped with the subject over or disregarded at,
the parties to file any mining claims. will. Where the denial of
pleading. Mingson brought The DENR Regional the fundamental right of
it to the DENR Mining Office ruled that portions of due process is apparent,
Arbitration Board (MAB), the claims must be awarded a decision rendered in
stating that due process to Mingson, considering its disregard of that right is
was not awarded. The MAB first claims were void for lack of
granted the appeal. Apo encroached by the newer jurisdiction.
Cement brought the issue ones. Apo Cements motion It is established
to the CA, which sustained for reconsideration to that the POA proceeded
the ruling of the MAB. The DENR Regional Offices to resolve the present
issue is WON the CA is Legal Division resulted in a mining dispute without
correct in upholding the Resolution recommending affording either party
MABs reversal of the POA. that the claims be awarded any fair and reasonable
Yes it is, since the denial of to Apo Cement, subject to opportunity to be heard
the fundamental right of Mingsons appeal. in violation of the
due process is apparent, The Regional Director aforementioned
due to the parties not being affirmed the Resolution, provisions of DENR DAO
given a reasonable subject to the review and 9523. Mingsons due
opportunity to be heard. As concurrence of the Panel of process rights were
such a decision rendered in Arbitrators (POA), violated, thereby
disregard of that right is mandated to reconcile rendering the POAs
void for lack of jurisdiction. disputes involving rights to Decision null and void.
mining areas. However, the Further, an
POA upheld the resolution, apparent lack of due
without requiring the process may be raised
parties to file any pleading. by a party at any time
Mingson appealed to since due process is a
the DENR Mining jurisdictional requisite
Arbitration Board (MAB), that all tribunals,
that the said decision was whether administrative
not supported by facts and or judicial, are duty
that the evidence was bound to observe.
arbitrary and issued with Considering too
grave abuse of authority Apocemcos failure to
[that it was denied due comply with Sections 5
process]. The MAB granted and 7,44 Rule 43 of the
the appeal, stating that Rules of Court in the
Mingson was not given the proceedings before the
opportunity to be heard, appellate court.
which is repugnant to due
process. [Sections 5 and 7, Rule
Apo Cement elevated 43 of the Rules of Court
the issue to the CA, which SEC. 5. How appeal
sustained the decision of taken. Appeal shall be
the MAB, sustaining that taken by filing a verified
Mingson was not afforded petition for review in
due process. seven (7) legible copies
with the Court of
ISSUE: WON the CA was Appeals, with proof of
correct in sustaining the service of a copy thereof
DENR MABs reversal of on the adverse party and
the POA? on the court or agency a
quo. x x x.x xx xSEC. 7.
Effect of failure to
comply with
requirements. The
failure of the petitioner
to comply with any of
the foregoing
requirements x x x proof
of service of the petition,
x x x shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal
thereof. (n)]

You might also like