benguet corp v dizon

1
7/25/2019 Benguet Corp v Dizon http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/benguet-corp-v-dizon 1/1 Benguet Corp vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC & Helen Dion!Reyes "#CT$: - Helen Dizon Reyes executed SPA constituting Celestino Dizon, her father as Atty-In-Fact to transfer, assign dis!ose other "" #ining clai#s$ - AIF entered into agree#ent %ith &enguet Cor!$ and Dizon 'ines %here(y it %as granted the right to ex!lore, de)elo!, ex!loit o!erate the *+ #ining clai#s including the "" clai#s of !ri)ate res!ondent$ - #os$ After the Deed of Ratification of Assign#ent %ith Dizon 'ines %as #ade, !ri)ate res!ondent re)oed the SPA filed %ith the R.C for the declaration of /!erations  Agree#ent as null and )oid for !hysiological inca!acity of Celestino 0Dizon to gi)e his consent thereto, %hich %as granted (y said court$ - &enguet Cor!$ filed a 'otion to Dis#iss on the ff$ grounds: "1 .he court is %ithout 2urisdiction o)er the su(2ect #atter and nature of the action$ 31 .he action is (arred (y !rior 2udg#ent and laches 1 .he action to declare in)alid the Deed of 0Ratification has !rescri(ed 41 .he )enue of the action %as i#!ro!erly laid$ - .he #otion %as denied (y the trial court including its #otion for reconsideration$ Hence, this !etition$ %$$'(  5/6 the R.C has 2urisdiction o)er cases in)ol)ing cancellation and7or enforce#ent of #ining contracts8 H'LD( PD "*3" %hich too effect on 9anuary ", ";+< )ests the &ureau of 'ines %ith  2urisdictional su!er)ision and control o)er all holders of #ining clai#s or a!!licants for and7or grantees of #ining licenses, !er#its, leases and7or o!erators thereof, including #ining ser)ice contracts and ser)ice contractors insofar as their #ining acti)ities are concerned$ .o effecti)ely discharge its tas as the =o)ern#ent>s ar# in the ad#inistration and dis!osition of #ineral resources, Section + of P$D$ 6o$ "3<" confers u!on the &ureau ?uasi-2udicial !o%ers as follo%s:  @SC$ +$ In addition to its regulatory and ad2udicati)e functions o)er co#!anies, !artnershi! or !ersons engaged in #ining ex!loration, de)elo!#ent and ex!loitation, the &ureau of 'ines shall ha)e origins and exclusi)e 2urisdiction to hear and decide cases in)ol)ing: xxx xxx xxx @Bc1 cancellation and7or enforce#ent of #ining contracts due to the refusal of the clai#o%ner7o!erator to a(ide (y the ter#s and conditions thereof$ In the case at (ar, it is not dis!uted that the su(2ect agree#ent is a #ining contract and !ri)ate res!ondent, in seeing a 2udicial declaration of its nullity, does not %ish to a(ide (y its ter#s and conditions$ .hese ele#ents alone (ring the action %ithin the a#(it of Section + of P$D$ "3<"$ 5hate)er the (asis for the refusal to a(ide (y the contract>s ter#s and conditions, the (asic issue re#ains one of its cancellation, %hich is !recisely %hat P$D$ 6o$ "3<" !laces %ithin the exclusi)e original 2urisdiction of the &ureau$ .he reason underlying such refusal is indeed an irrele)ant #atter insofar as 2urisdictional co#!etence is concerned, for to #ae 2urisdiction de!endent thereon %ould not only (e @ratifying t%o 2udicial (odies exercising 2urisdiction o)er an essentially the sa#e su(2ect #atter a situation analogous to s!lit 2urisdiction %hich is o(noxious to the orderly ad#inistration of  2ustice@ (ut also clearly ignoring the o(2ect of P$D$ "3<" to #ae the ad2udication of #ining cases a !urely ad#inistrati)e #atter $ In the light of our ruling that the 2urisdiction o)er !ri)ate res!ondent>s action to annul the /!erations Agree#ent !ertaining to the &ureau of 'ines and =eo-Sciences rather than the regional trial court, the ?uestion of )enue (eco#es i##aterial$ Considering further that the other issues raised (y !etitioner, na#ely res 2udicata, laches and !rescri!tion are factual #atters %hich are not only i#!ro!er in a !etition for certiorari (ut %hich, #ore i#!ortantly, !etitioner failed to su(stantiate, no ruling on these issues need (e #ade$ 5HRF/R, the instant !etition is =RA6.D$ .he assailed orders of 'arch 3, ";<3 and 9une 3, ";< are set aside and Ci)il Case 6o$ E-"+" of the Regional .rial Court of Euezon City, &ranch CGII, is ordered DIS'ISSD$ .his decision is i##ediately executory$ Costs against !ri)ate res!ondent

Upload: sarah-esther

Post on 24-Feb-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Benguet Corp v Dizon

7/25/2019 Benguet Corp v Dizon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/benguet-corp-v-dizon 1/1

Benguet Corp vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC &Helen Dion!Reyes

"#CT$:

- Helen Dizon Reyes executed SPA constituting Celestino Dizon, her father as Atty-In-Factto transfer, assign dis!ose other "" #ining clai#s$

- AIF entered into agree#ent %ith &enguet Cor!$ and Dizon 'ines %here(y it %as grantedthe right to ex!lore, de)elo!, ex!loit o!erate the *+ #ining clai#s including the ""clai#s of !ri)ate res!ondent$

- #os$ After the Deed of Ratification of Assign#ent %ith Dizon 'ines %as #ade, !ri)ateres!ondent re)oed the SPA filed %ith the R.C for the declaration of /!erations

 Agree#ent as null and )oid for !hysiological inca!acity of Celestino 0Dizon to gi)e hisconsent thereto, %hich %as granted (y said court$

- &enguet Cor!$ filed a 'otion to Dis#iss on the ff$ grounds:"1 .he court is %ithout 2urisdiction o)er the su(2ect #atter and nature of the action$31 .he action is (arred (y !rior 2udg#ent and laches1 .he action to declare in)alid the Deed of 0Ratification has !rescri(ed41 .he )enue of the action %as i#!ro!erly laid$

- .he #otion %as denied (y the trial court including its #otion for reconsideration$ Hence,this !etition$

%$$'(

  5/6 the R.C has 2urisdiction o)er cases in)ol)ing cancellation and7or enforce#ent of#ining contracts8

H'LD(

PD "*3" %hich too effect on 9anuary ", ";+< )ests the &ureau of 'ines %ith

 2urisdictional su!er)ision and control o)er all holders of #ining clai#s or a!!licants for and7or grantees of #ining licenses, !er#its, leases and7or o!erators thereof, including #ining ser)icecontracts and ser)ice contractors insofar as their #ining acti)ities are concerned$ .o effecti)elydischarge its tas as the =o)ern#ent>s ar# in the ad#inistration and dis!osition of #ineralresources, Section + of P$D$ 6o$ "3<" confers u!on the &ureau ?uasi-2udicial !o%ers as follo%s:

 @SC$ +$ In addition to its regulatory and ad2udicati)e functions o)er co#!anies, !artnershi! or !ersons engaged in #ining ex!loration, de)elo!#ent and ex!loitation, the &ureau of 'inesshall ha)e origins and exclusi)e 2urisdiction to hear and decide cases in)ol)ing:xxx xxx xxx@Bc1 cancellation and7or enforce#ent of #ining contracts due to the refusal of theclai#o%ner7o!erator to a(ide (y the ter#s and conditions thereof$

In the case at (ar, it is not dis!uted that the su(2ect agree#ent is a #ining contract and !ri)ateres!ondent, in seeing a 2udicial declaration of its nullity, does not %ish to a(ide (y its ter#s andconditions$ .hese ele#ents alone (ring the action %ithin the a#(it of Section + of P$D$ "3<"$5hate)er the (asis for the refusal to a(ide (y the contract>s ter#s and conditions, the (asicissue re#ains one of its cancellation, %hich is !recisely %hat P$D$ 6o$ "3<" !laces %ithin theexclusi)e original 2urisdiction of the &ureau$.he reason underlying such refusal is indeed an irrele)ant #atter insofar as 2urisdictionalco#!etence is concerned, for to #ae 2urisdiction de!endent thereon %ould not only (e@ratifying t%o 2udicial (odies exercising 2urisdiction o)er an essentially the sa#e su(2ect #atter asituation analogous to s!lit 2urisdiction %hich is o(noxious to the orderly ad#inistration of 

 2ustice@ (ut also clearly ignoring the o(2ect of P$D$ "3<" to #ae the ad2udication of #ining

cases a !urely ad#inistrati)e #atter $

In the light of our ruling that the 2urisdiction o)er !ri)ate res!ondent>s action to annul the/!erations Agree#ent !ertaining to the &ureau of 'ines and =eo-Sciences rather than theregional trial court, the ?uestion of )enue (eco#es i##aterial$

Considering further that the other issues raised (y !etitioner, na#ely res 2udicata, laches and!rescri!tion are factual #atters %hich are not only i#!ro!er in a !etition for certiorari (ut %hich,#ore i#!ortantly, !etitioner failed to su(stantiate, no ruling on these issues need (e #ade$

5HRF/R, the instant !etition is =RA6.D$ .he assailed orders of 'arch 3, ";<3 and9une 3, ";< are set aside and Ci)il Case 6o$ E-"+" of the Regional .rial Court of EuezonCity, &ranch CGII, is ordered DIS'ISSD$ .his decision is i##ediately executory$ Costsagainst !ri)ate res!ondent