7/27/2019 Celestial Mining v Macroasia Eunice

1/1

Celestial Mining v Macroasia

Facts:T h e S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s a n d M a c r o a i s a e n t e r e d

into a Mining Lease Contract for a term of 25 years. Celestial f i led a Petit ion to Cancel thesubject mining lease contracts and other mining claims of Macroasia before the Panel ofArbitrators (POA) of the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB) of the DENR. The POA grantedthe petition of Celestial to cancel theMining Lease Contracts of Macroasia. It gave Celestialthepreferential right to Macroasias mining areas. H o w e v e r , t h e M A B f o u n d t h a t i t w a s B l u e R i d gethat had prior and preferential rights over the mining claims of Macroasia. Both Celestial andM a c r o a s i a m o v e d f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . M a c r o a s i a a l s o f i l e d i t s S u p p l e m e n t a l M o t i o nf o r Reconsideration questioning the jurisdiction of the POA in c an cel ing mi ni ng l ea se c on tr ac ts a ndmining claims. Macroasia averred that the power and authority to grant, cancel, and revoke mineralagreements is exclusively lodged with the DENR Secretary.MAB issued a Resolution vacating its priordecision and held that neither the POA nor the MAB had the power to revoke a mineral agreementd u ly e nt e r ed in t o b y t he DENR Secretary; that there was no provision giving the P O A a n d M A Bt h e c o n c u r r e n t p o w e r t o m a n a g e o r develop mineral resources

Celestial assailed the MAB Resolution before the CA in a p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w b u t w a sde ni ed . CA up he ld t he exclusive authority of the DENR Secretary to approve, cancel, andrevoke mineral agreements. C e l e s t i a l f i l e d a n o t h e r p e t i t i o n a s s a i l i n g t h e C A sDecision insofar as it granted Blue Ridges prior and preferential rights.

Issue: W h o h a s a u t h o r i t y a n d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c a n c e l e x i s t i n g mineral

agreements?

Held:Under RA 7942, the power of control and supervision of the DENR Secretary over the

MGB to cancel or recommend cancellation of mineral rights clearly demonstrates

t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e D E N R S e c r e t a r y t o c a n c e l o r a p p r o v e t h ec a n c e l l a t i o n o f mineral agreements. Sec 7 of RA 7942 explicitly grants t h ea u t h o r i t y o f t h e M G B D i r e c t o r t o r e c o m m e n d c an c e l l a t i o n t ot h e D E N R . A s t h e M G B i s u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o no f t h e D E N R S e c r e t a r y , t h e n t h e l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t i t i s t h eDENR Secretary who can cancel the mineral agreements and not the POA nor theMAB. Sec. 77 of RA 794 merely grants the POA the jurisdiction to resolve any adverse claim,protest, or opposition to a pending application for a mineral agreement filed withthe concerned Regional Office of the MGB. The power of the POA to resolv e an yadverse claim, opposition, or protest relative to mining rights under Sec. 77(a)of RA7942 is confined only to adverse claims, conflicts and op po si ti on sr e l a t i n g t o a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e g r a n t o f m i ne ra l r ig ht s. POAs jurisdiction isconfined only to r e s o l u t i o n s o f s u c h a d v e r s e c l a i m s , c o n f l i c t s a n doppositions and it has no authority to approve or reject said applications. Suchpower is vested in the DENR Secretary upon recommendation of the MGBDirector.