Moncayo Integrated Small-Scale Miners Association, Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the "Diwalwal Gold Rush Area" in Mt. Diwata, Mindanao, specifically a 729-hectare portion that was excluded from Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation’s (SMGMC) Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) application and declared as a People’s Small Scale Mining Area. This area has been the subject of controversies since the mid-1980s, involving various mining corporations, cooperatives, and small-scale miners. 2. Procedural History: The case traces back to Marcopper Mining Corporation's prospecting and exploration permits, which were later assigned to SMGMC. Adverse claims were filed against SMGMC's MPSA application, primarily based on DENR Administrative Order No. 66 (DAO No. 66), which declared a portion of the area open for small-scale mining. The Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) initially dismissed the adverse claims but later vacated its decision, excluding the 729-hectare area from SMGMC's MPSA application. This MAB decision was appealed. Subsequently, the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) declared the 729-hectare area as a People's Small Scale Mining Area, a decision affirmed with modifications by DENR Secretary Antonio H. Cerilles. The Court of Appeals initially denied SMGMC's petition but later amended its decision, annulling the DENR Secretary's ruling for grave abuse of discretion. 3. The Petition: These two consolidated petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court were filed by Moncayo Integrated Small-Scale Miners Association, Inc. (MISSMA) and DENR Secretary Antonio H. Cerilles. They assail the Court of Appeals' amended decision that annulled the DENR Secretary's affirmation of the PMRB's declaration of the 729-hectare area as a People's Small Scale Mining Area. Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside its initial finding of forum shopping and litis pendencia, and that the DENR Secretary acted within his authority in modifying the PMRB's decision. They also contend that the DENR Secretary's decision did not contravene the MAB's mandate. However, the Supreme Court ultimately declared the petitions moot and academic due to supervening developments, including this Court's decision in Apex Mining v. SMGMC which declared DAO No. 66 void and EP 133 expired, and Presidential Proclamation No. 297 which established a mineral reservation in the area.
Issue(s)
Whether the cases have been rendered moot and academic by supervening events, specifically the finality of the Apex Mining v. SMGMC decision and the issuance of Proclamation No. 297. Whether the DENR Secretary has the authority to modify the decisions of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) under the power of 'control.' Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the issue of forum shopping and litis pendencia to decide the case on the merits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petitions for being moot and academic. The Court found that supervening developments, particularly the decision in Apex Mining v. SMGMC (G.R. Nos. 152613, etc.) and Presidential Proclamation No. 297, rendered the issues raised in the present petitions moot and academic. The Apex Mining decision declared Exploration Permit No. 133 (EP 133) expired and its transfer to SMGMC void, and also declared DENR Administrative Order No. 66 (DAO No. 66) illegal. Consequently, SMGMC had no basis to claim rights over the disputed area, and the PMRB and DENR Secretary's decisions, which were predicated on DAO No. 66, were overturned for lack of basis.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petitions were rendered moot and academic due to the finality of the consolidated cases in Apex Mining v. SMGMC. In that ruling, the Court declared that Exploration Permit (EP) 133 had expired on July 7, 1994, and its transfer to Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SMGMC) was void. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order (DAO) No. 66 was illegal because the Secretary lacked the authority to reclassify forest reserves for mining purposes. Since SMGMC's claims were based on EP 133, and the small-scale miners' claims were based on DAO No. 66, the invalidation of both instruments left no legal basis for the current dispute over the 729-hectare area. Additionally, the issuance of Proclamation No. 297 by the President, establishing the area as a mineral reservation, further superseded the administrative orders in question. On Issue 2: The Court clarified that under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7076 (People's Small-Scale Mining Act), the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) is under the 'direct supervision and control' of the DENR Secretary. Citing League of Provinces v. DENR, the Court distinguished between 'supervision,' which is merely overseeing performance, and 'control,' which is the power to alter, modify, or substitute a subordinate's judgment. Because the Secretary possesses the power of control, Secretary Cerilles acted within his jurisdiction when he modified the PMRB decision to delineate the area into two specific blocks for effective management. This power is necessary for the Executive to carry out the constitutional mandate of supervising the exploration and development of natural resources. Consequently, the Court of Appeals' finding of grave abuse of discretion on this point was legally unsound. On Issue 3: The Court deemed it unnecessary to pass judgment on whether the Court of Appeals erred regarding forum shopping and litis pendencia. Since the entire controversy regarding the 729-hectare area was mooted by the Apex Mining decision, any ruling on procedural errors would serve no practical purpose. The Court noted that in Apex Mining, the underlying validity of the mining rights was settled against SMGMC, making the procedural history of the present case irrelevant to the final outcome. Judicial economy dictates that when a case is moot, the Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction unless specific exceptions apply, none of which were present here. The priority of the Court is to dismiss cases where the judgment would be unenforceable or purely advisory.
Main Doctrine
The Court declared the petitions moot and academic due to supervening developments, specifically the Supreme Court's prior decision in Apex Mining v. SMGMC, which declared the exploration permit void and DAO No. 66 illegal, thereby rendering the issues in the present petitions moot.