Pio v. Marcos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mackenzie Pio claimed ownership of land and 48 mining claims inherited from his father, Artemio Pio. He filed a complaint against Philex Mining Corporation (Philex) for unlawfully occupying his land, introducing improvements, and extracting ores from his alleged mining claims. He prayed for Philex to vacate, pay rentals for surface rights, and pay for operating the mineral claims. Procedural History: Petitioner sought a writ of preliminary injunction, which the respondent judge initially deferred. Later, the judge ordered the issuance of the injunction upon posting of a bond, but Philex filed a motion for reconsideration which remained unresolved. Several parties intervened, including the heirs of Baldomero Nevada, Sr. (Nevadas), claiming ownership of the mining claims operated by Philex under lease contracts with the Republic. The Heirs of Bonifacio Montilla (Montillas) intervened, asserting a 2/3 co-ownership over the mining claims and alleging breach of trust by the Nevadas. The National Mines and Allied Workers Union, Igorot Cultural Minority, and Heirs of Antonio B. Nicolas also intervened. The trial court issued orders requiring Philex to deposit royalties paid to the Nevadas, which the Nevadas sought to set aside. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to issue the writ of preliminary injunction, arguing that it was a ministerial duty after the injunction bond was posted. Separately, intervenors Nevadas filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction over mining disputes under Republic Act 4388, which vested exclusive original jurisdiction in the Director of Mines. The Supreme Court consolidated these cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is a ministerial duty that can be compelled by mandamus. Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over disputes arising from mining locations, particularly in light of Republic Act 4388. Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing orders requiring Philex to deposit royalties paid to the Nevadas.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus (L-27849) is dismissed. The petition for certiorari and prohibition (L-34432) is dismissed, except that the second cause of action in petitioner's complaint, which disputes Philex's right to operate and exploit the mining claims and seeks recovery of P70,000 monthly for such operation, is held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent court and the writ of prohibition is granted to dismiss this cause of action. The supplemental prayer of intervenors Nevadas for the setting aside of the deposit orders is denied, and the temporary restraining order is lifted, except that the deposit of royalties already paid to the Nevadas since the issuance of the deposit orders shall not be required upon their filing of a counter-bond.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Petition for Mandamus (L-27849): The Court held that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is not a ministerial duty but involves the exercise of judgment and discretion. Therefore, mandamus will not lie to compel its issuance. The petitioner failed to show a clear and certain right to the injunction and a clear and specific legal duty on the part of the respondent court to issue it. Furthermore, Philex's motion for reconsideration of the injunction order remained unresolved, making the demand for mandamus premature. The Court also noted the petitioner's uncertain posture, exemplified by a motion to withdraw the petition. On the Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (L-34432): The Court affirmed that under Republic Act 4388, exclusive original jurisdiction over "conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations" is vested in the Director of Mines, with appeals to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and subsequently to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. Consequently, the petitioner's second cause of action, which disputes Philex's right to operate and exploit the mining claims, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. However, the petitioner's first cause of action, seeking recovery of possession and rentals for surface rights, is a judicial claim that falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. On the Deposit Orders: The Court found that the Montillas' cross-claim against the Nevadas, alleging breach of trust and co-ownership over the mining claims and royalties, presented a valid judicial controversy within the jurisdiction of the respondent court. The deposit orders requiring Philex to deposit royalties were issued within the court's jurisdiction and in the proper exercise of its discretion to protect the interests of the parties pending the resolution of the dispute. The Court lifted the temporary restraining order but required the Nevadas to post a counter-bond for royalties already received.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance of a preliminary injunction if the issuance involves the exercise of judgment and discretion, and not merely a ministerial duty. Furthermore, disputes arising out of mining locations fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Director of Mines, not the Court of First Instance, under Republic Act 4388.