Dap Mining Association v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner DAP Mining Association entered into a contract with respondent Chico Mines, Inc. for the occupation, operation, and exploitation of seventy-one (71) mineral lode claims. The claims were subsequently transferred and registered in the name of Chico Mines, Inc. A trust agreement was executed, granting Chico Mines, Inc. the power to explore and exploit the claims in exchange for a royalty payment. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of the contract with the Bureau of Mines and Geodetic Sciences (BMGS) alleging non-fulfillment of terms and breach of trust. The BMGS declared the contract null and void, finding that the mining claims were deemed abandoned by petitioner prior to the contract's execution and were registered in the name of respondent. Petitioner failed to appeal within the reglementary period but filed "Multiple Alternative Motions" which were denied for being filed out of time. Petitioner then filed a petition for relief from judgment with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), which was initially dismissed for being out of time. Subsequently, an order was issued setting aside the dismissal, reversing the BMGS decision, and canceling the contract and mining claims. This order was later annulled by the Minister of Natural Resources, reviving the MNR's denial of for relief. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, which dismissed The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which also dismissed The Petition: Petitioner filed the instant petition for review, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that for relief was filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for relief from judgment was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the petition for relief from judgment being filed within the reglementary period: The Supreme Court held that the petition for relief was filed out of time. The decision of the Director of Mines was received by petitioner on May 12, 1981. Petitioner failed to file an appeal within the 5-day reglementary period prescribed by Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 463. Instead, on June 1, 1981, petitioner filed "Multiple Alternative Motions" praying for reconsideration, but by then, the decision had already become final and executory. Realizing this, petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment on August 25, 1981, which was 105 days after receipt of the decision. This was clearly beyond the 60-day period prescribed by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court for filing a petition for relief after learning of the judgment or order to be set aside. On the issue of the Court of Appeals erring in dismissing the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration and appeal interposed by petitioner were all in accordance with law and evidence. The appellate court correctly pointed out that a strict observance of the reglementary period for appeal is indispensable and that certiorari does not lie where an appeal has been lost. The Court reiterated that the decision of the BMGS of May 7, 1981, had become final and executory due to petitioner's failure to appeal within the prescribed period. Furthermore, the petition for relief failed to comply with the requirement of Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, as it was not accompanied by affidavits of merit showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense. These affidavits are indispensable for a court to entertain a petition for relief.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within the reglementary periods prescribed by the Rules of Court, and must be accompanied by affidavits of merit showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense. Failure to comply with these requirements warrants the dismissal of the petition.