CASE TITLE RECIT READY
Apo Cement Corp. This is a case involving
v. Mingson Mining disputed mining claims. Apo
Industries Corp. Cement wished to take over
mining claims of certain
[I called dibs!!! areas that overlapped with
portions of the claims of
Also, I deserve to Mingson. The case was
share my side of eventually brought to the
the story] Panel of Arbitrators (POA),
which is mandated to
reconcile disputes.
However, the POA upheld a
resolution in favor of Apo
Cement without requiring
the parties to file any
pleading. Mingson brought
it to the DENR Mining
Arbitration Board (MAB),
stating that due process
was not awarded. The MAB
granted the appeal. Apo
Cement brought the issue
to the CA, which sustained
the ruling of the MAB. The
issue is WON the CA is
correct in upholding the
MABs reversal of the POA.
Yes it is, since the denial of
the fundamental right of
FACTS & ISSUE
In a dispute involving
mining claims of Allied 1 &
2 and Lapulapu 31 &32 Mining Act of 1995,
Apo Cement submitted a
Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement to the DENR,
seeking to take over their
current holder, Luvimin.
Mingson assailed the
aforementioned
declarations on the ground
that its own mining claims,
i.e., Yellow Eagle I to VII,
overlapped with the subject
mining claims.
The DENR Regional
Office ruled that portions of
the claims must be awarded
to Mingson, considering its
first claims were
encroached by the newer
ones. Apo Cements motion
for reconsideration to
DENR Regional Offices
Legal Division resulted in a
Resolution recommending
that the claims be awarded
to Apo Cement, subject to
Mingsons appeal.
HELD
YES. Implementing
Rules of the Philippine
clearly require that the
parties involved in
mining disputes be given
the opportunity to be
heard.
The violation of a
partys right to due
process raises a serious
jurisdictional issue,
which cannot be glossed
over or disregarded at,
will. Where the denial of
the fundamental right of
due process is apparent,
a decision rendered in
disregard of that right is
void for lack of
jurisdiction.
It is established
that the POA proceeded
to resolve the present
mining dispute without
affording either party
any fair and reasonable
opportunity to be heard
in violation of the
due process is apparent,
due to the parties not being
given a reasonable
opportunity to be heard. As
such a decision rendered in
disregard of that right is
void for lack of jurisdiction.
The Regional Director
affirmed the Resolution,
subject to the review and
concurrence of the Panel of
Arbitrators (POA),
mandated to reconcile
disputes involving rights to
mining areas. However, the
POA upheld the resolution,
without requiring the
parties to file any pleading.
Mingson appealed to
the DENR Mining
Arbitration Board (MAB),
that the said decision was
not supported by facts and
that the evidence was
arbitrary and issued with
grave abuse of authority
[that it was denied due
process]. The MAB granted
the appeal, stating that
Mingson was not given the
opportunity to be heard,
which is repugnant to due
process.
Apo Cement elevated
the issue to the CA, which
sustained the decision of
the MAB, sustaining that
Mingson was not afforded
due process.
aforementioned
provisions of DENR DAO
9523. Mingsons due
process rights were
violated, thereby
rendering the POAs
Decision null and void.
Further, an
apparent lack of due
process may be raised
by a party at any time
since due process is a
jurisdictional requisite
that all tribunals,
whether administrative
or judicial, are duty
bound to observe.
Considering too
Apocemcos failure to
comply with Sections 5
and 7,44 Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court in the
proceedings before the
appellate court.
[Sections 5 and 7, Rule
43 of the Rules of Court
SEC. 5. How appeal
taken. Appeal shall be
taken by filing a verified
petition for review in
seven (7) legible copies
 with the Court of
ISSUE: WON the CA was Appeals, with proof of
correct in sustaining the service of a copy thereof
DENR MABs reversal of on the adverse party and
the POA? on the court or agency a
quo. x x x.x xx xSEC. 7.
Effect of failure to
comply with
requirements. The
failure of the petitioner
to comply with any of
the foregoing
requirements x x x proof
of service of the petition,
x x x shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal
thereof. (n)]