THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 92328. June 6, 2001]
DAP MINING ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CHICO MINES, INC. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, MIDEX (Phil.), INC., JUANITO C. FERNANDEZ, ERNESTO MACEDA, FULGENCIO FACTORAN, JR., and CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., respondents.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
The instant petition was
re-raffled to herein ponente pursuant to A.M. No. 00-9-03-SC (Re:
Creation of Special Committee on Case Backlog).
The case is an appeal
from the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 20 November 1989 in
C.A. G.R. SP No. 12856, dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by
petitioner DAP Mining Association and affirming the order, dated 05 March 1987,
of then Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraeg, Jr.
On 04 July 1971,
petitioner entered into a contract with respondent Chico Mines, Inc., for the
occupation, possession, control, operation and exploitation of seventy-one (71)
mineral lode claims, situated within the City of Baguio and the Municipality of
Itogon, Province of Benguet. Petitioner
asserted that it had actually located, staked, occupied and then registered the
mining claims with the Mining Recorder of the Bureau of Mines and Geodetic
Sciences (“BMGS”). Pursuant to the
agreement, the mining claims were transferred to and registered in the name of
respondent Chico Mines in the Mining Recorder's Office of District I, Baguio City.
On 21 October 1971, the
parties executed a trust agreement superseding the contract of 04 July 1971 and
granting to Chico Mines the absolute power to explore, develop, and exploit the
lode claims with the obligation to pay petitioner a straight royalty of three
and a half (3-1/2%) percent of the monthly smelter returns from all ores
extracted from the mineral claims.
On 11 November 1980,
petitioner filed with the BMGS a petition for cancellation of the contract of
21 October 1971 grounded on the non-fulfillment of the terms of the agreement
and breach of trust on the part of respondent mining company. In its complaint, petitioner alleged that
respondent company had failed to operate the mining claims in accordance with
the stipulations of the parties.
Respondent company, in
its answer, denied the material asseverations of the petition and stated that
it was not a party to the agreement and did not authorize anyone to sign for
and in its behalf, adding, moreover, that petitioner was disqualified from
filing any declaration of location of mineral claims.
On 07 May 1981, the BMGS
rendered its decision declaring the contract of 21 October 1971 null and void. The BMGS ratiocinated that the subject
mining claims were deemed abandoned by petitioner before the execution of the
contract between the parties and that, on 06 August 1971, the mining claims
were registered in the name of respondent company.
Petitioner received a
copy of the decision of the BMGS on 12 May 1981. No appeal was taken therefrom within the reglementary period of
five (5) days provided under Presidential Decree No. 463. On 01 June 1981, petitioner filed its
"Multiple Alternative Motions" which sought reconsideration of the
decision of 07 May 1981 of the BMGS. On
30 July 1981, the BMGS denied the motions for having been filed by petitioner
beyond the five-day period prescribed by Section 131 of the Consolidated Mines
Administrative Order, as amended, implementing Presidential Decree No. 463, as
amended. A copy of the order
denying the multiple alternative
motions was received by petitioner on 13 August 1981.
On 25 August 1981,
petitioner filed with the Ministry of Natural Resources a petition, docketed
MNR Case No. 4855, for relief from judgment.
On 07 July 1982, the Ministry of Natural Resources dismissed the
petition for having been filed out of time as the same was interposed beyond
sixty (60) days after petitioner had learned of the order sought to be set
aside. On 28 July 1982, petitioner
filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the order. On 22 July 1985, or after the lapse of more than three years,
then Deputy Minister of Natural Resources Arnold Caoili issued an order setting aside the MNR order
of 07 July 1982, reversing the decision of the Director of Mines of 07 May 1981
and relieving petitioner of the effects of said decision, canceling the
operating contract between petitioner and respondent, and ordering the Mining
Recorder of Baguio City to cancel the mining claims denominated
"ROSE" claims registered in the name of respondent and to transfer
and register the claims in the name of petitioner upon payment of the
registration cost and other obligations due on the mining claims.
Respondent company filed
a motion to declare the order of 22 July 1985 null and void. In a decision, dated 23 August 1986, then
Minister of Natural Resources Ernesto Maceda annulled the order of former
Deputy Minister Arnold Caoili on the thesis that when Deputy Minister Caoili
acted on petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the decision of the BMGS of
07 May 1981 had already become final and executory. The order, dated 23 August 1986, in effect revived the decision
of 07 July 1982 of the Ministry of Natural Resources which had denied the
petition for relief.
Petitioner received a
copy of the decision of Minister Ernesto Maceda on 04 September 1986, and it
interposed an appeal to the Office of the President. Upon review of the assailed decision, the Office of the President
ordered the dismissal of the appeal.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration from the dismissal of the appeal
was likewise denied.
Undaunted, petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari before this Court which the latter
forthwith referred to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition. On 20 November 1989, the appellate court
rendered its decision dismissing the petition, with costs against petitioner,
in this wise:
"Unfortunately, a reading of the petition does not indicate to Us what jurisdictional errors might have been committed by the respondent officials. As pointed out by the Solicitor General the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration and appeal interposed by petitioner were all in accordance with law and the evidence. In asserting that the 1981 decision of the Bureau of Mines can no longer be disturbed for being final and executory, the Solicitor General made the following observations to which We fully agree:
"'In the case of Agricultural & Industrial Marketing, Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 49, the Supreme Court held that a strict
observance of the reglementary period within which to exercise the statutory
right of appeal has been considered as absolutely indispensable to the prevention
of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial
business. And perfection of appeal
within the period prescribed by law is jurisdictional (Santos vs. CA, 125 SCRA
22). Further, the remedy of certiorari
does no lie where appeal has been lost.
Certiorari cannot take the place of appeal.'"[1]
Petitioner would insist,
in the instant petition, that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
petition for relief filed was filed out of time.
The petition lacks merit.
The records would show
that the decision, dated 07 May 1981, of the Director of Mines was received by
petitioner, through its counsel, on 12 May 1981. Petitioner failed to file an appeal within the 5-day reglementary
period prescribed by Section 50 of
Presidential Decree No. 463 -
"Sec. 50 Appeals. - Any party not satisfied with the decision or order of the Director may, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, appeal to the Secretary. Decisions of the Secretary are likewise appealable within five (5) days from receipt thereof by the affected party to the President of the Philippines whose decision shall be final and executory" -
Instead,
on 01 June 1981 or after the lapse of twenty (20) days from the receipt by
petitioner's counsel of a copy of the decision, it filed “Multiple Alternative
Motions” praying, in effect, for the reconsideration of the 07th May 1981
decision of the BMGS but, by then, the decision sought to be reconsidered had
already become final and executory.
Realizing the fatal
consequence of its failure to seasonably appeal the 07th
May 1981 decision of the BMGS, petitioner next resorted to the filing of a
petition for relief from judgment on 25 August 1981 or after the lapse of one
hundred five (105) days from the time of its receipt of a copy of the 07th
May 1981 decision. Clearly, the
petition for relief was itself filed beyond the period prescribed by Section 3,
Rule 38, of the Rules of Court.
"Sec. 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. - A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits 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, as the case maybe."
A petition for relief is
a special remedy designed to give a party a last chance to defend his right or
protect his interest.[2] It is a relief that can only be availed of in
exceptional cases. Being an act of
grace, so designed as it were to give the aggrieved party a second opportunity,
the extraordinary period fixed therefor must be considered non-extendible and
not subject to condition or contingency.
Compounding the matter,
the petition for relief failed to be accompanied by affidavits of merit,
showing the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence relied upon, and
the facts constituting petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or
defense. These affidavits of merit
would serve as the indispensable basis for a court to be called upon to
entertain a petition for relief.[3]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo (Chairman),
Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes, and
Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.