CASE TITLE RECIT READY FACTS & ISSUE HELD

 Apo Cement
Cement Corp. This is a case involving In a dispute involving  0*8.
 0*8. Implementing
Implementing
 v.
 v. Mingson Mining disputed mining claims. Apo mining claims of 1Allied 2 3 ules ules of the "hilip
"hilippin
pinee
Industries Corp. Cement ished to tae over 45 and 16apulapu 72 3745 Mining ing Act of 2<<=, <<=,
mining claims of certain  Apo Cement submitted a clearly clearly re'uire that the
[I called dibs!!! areas that overlapped ith Mineral "roduction 8haring partie ties involved in
portions of the claims of  Agreement
 Agreement to the )*+, mining disputes be given
 Also, I deserve
deserve to Mingson. The case as seei
seeingng to tae
tae over
over their
their the
the oppo
opportrtun
unit
ity
y to be
share my side of eventually brought to the curre
currentnt holde
holderr, 6uvimi
6uvimin.n. heard.
the story] "anel of Arbitrators #"$A%, Mingsonson assailed the The violatio
violationn of a
hich is mandated to aforementioned party
arty//s righ
ight to due due
reconcile disputes. declarations on the ground process raises a serious
&oever, the "$A upheld a that its on mining claims,  :urisdictional
 :urisdictional issue,
resolution in favor of Apo i.e., 10ello *agle I to 9II,5 hich cannot be glossed
Cement ithout re'uiring overlapped ith the sub:ect over or disregard disregarded ed at,
the parties to (le any mining claims. ill. here the denial of 
pleading. Mingson brought The )*+
)*+ egioegiona
nall the fundamental right of 
it to the )*+ Mining $;ice ruled that portions of  due process is apparent,
 Arbitration -oard #MA-%,
#MA-%, the claims must be aarded a deci decisio
sion
n rende
rendered
red in
stating that due process to Mingson, considering its disregard of that right is
as not aarded. The MA- (rst claims ere  void for lac of 
granted the appeal. Apo encr
encroac
oached
hed by the nee neerr  :urisdiction.
 :urisdiction.
Cement brought the issue ones. Apo Cement/s motion It is es esta
tabl
blisishe
hedd
to the CA, hich sustained for rec
reconsid
siderat
eratio
ion
n to that the "$A proceeded
the ruling of the MA-. The )*+
)*+ egi egiononal
al $;ic
$;ice/e/s
s to reresol
solve
ve the pre presen
sentt
issue is $+ the CA is 6egal )ivision resulted in a min mining
ing disp
dispute
ute ith
ithout
out
correct in upholding the esoluti
esolutionon recomme
recommendinnding g a;
a;or
ordi
ding
ng ei eith
ther
er pa part
rty
y
MA-/s reversal of the "$A. that the claims be aarded any fair and reasonable reasonable
 0es
 0es it is, since
since the denial
denial of to Apo Cement,
Cement, sub:ect
sub:ect to opportunity to be heard
the fundamental right of Mingson/s appeal. in violation of the
 due process is apparent, The egional )irector aforementioned
due to the parties not being a;irmed the esolution, provisions of )*+ )A$
given a reasonable sub:ect to the revie and <=47. Mingson/s due
opportunity to be heard. As concurrence of the "anel of  process rights ere
such a decision rendered in  Arbitrators #"$A%,  violated, thereby
disregard of that right is mandated to reconcile rendering the "$A/s
 void for lac of :urisdiction. disputes involving rights to )ecision null and void.
mining areas. &oever, the >urther, an
"$A upheld the resolution, apparent lac of due
ithout re'uiring the process may be raised
parties to (le any pleading. by a party at any time
Mingson appealed to since due process is a
the )*+ Mining  :urisdictional re'uisite
 Arbitration -oard #MA-%, that all tribunals,
that the said decision as hether administrative
not supported by facts and or :udicial, are duty
that the evidence as bound to observe.
arbitrary and issued ith Considering too
grave abuse of authority  Apocemco/s failure to
[that it as denied due comply ith 8ections =
process]. The MA- granted and ?,@@ ule @7 of the
the appeal, stating that ules of Court in the
Mingson as not given the proceedings before the
opportunity to be heard, appellate court.
hich is repugnant to due
process. [8ections = and ?, ule
 Apo Cement elevated @7 of the ules of Court
the issue to the CA, hich 8*C. =. &o appeal
sustained the decision of  taen.  Appeal shall be
the MA-, sustaining that taen by (ling a veri(ed
Mingson as not a;orded petition for revie in
due process. seven #?% legible copies
 ith the Court of  
ISSUEB $+ the CA as  Appeals, ith proof of 
correct in sustaining the service of a copy thereof 
)*+ MA-/s reversal of on the adverse party and
the "$A on the court or agency a
'uo. D D D.D DD D8*C. ?.
*;ect of failure to
comply ith
re'uirements.  The
failure of the petitioner
to comply ith any of 
the foregoing
re'uirements D D D proof 
of service of the petition,
D D D shall be su;icient
ground for the dismissal
thereof. #n%]