J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2014-0059: APO CEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VERSUS MINGSON MINING INDUSTRIES CORPORATION (G.R. NO. 206728, 12 NOV 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ) SUBJECT/S: DUE PROCESS, APPEAL (BRIEF TITLE: APO CEMENT VS. MINGSON MINING)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 13, 2012 and the Resolution dated April 23, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100456 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

APO CEMENT SUBMITTED A MINERAL PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT TO DENR OVER AN UN-USED MINING AREA. MINGSON MINING PROTESTED CLAIMING THE AREA ENCROACHED HIS MINING SITE. DENR AT FIRST RULED IN FAVOR OF MINGSON MINING. THEN UPON MOTION FOR RECON OF APO CEMENT, DENR RULED IN FAVOR OF APO CEMENT BUT SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS OF THE PANEL OF ARBITRATORS (POA) WHICH BY LAW HAS THE JURISISCTION TO DETERMINE SUCH CLAIMS. WITHOUT CONDUCTING HEARINGS, PAO AFFIRMED THE DENR DECISION. SINGSON MINING APPEALED TO DENR MAB (MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD) WHICH NULLIFIED POA’S FINDINGS BECAUSE POA DID NOT CONDUCT HEARING IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. C.A. AFFIRMED THE RULING OF DENR MAB. IS CA RULING CORRECT?

YES. BY MERELY REVIEWING THE DENR FINDINGS WITHOUT CONDUCTING HEARING, POA RULED IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. THUS, ITS RULING IS NULL AND VOID.

Sections 22330 (on preliminary conference), 22431 (on hearing), and 22732 (on the proceedings before the POA), as well as Sections 22133 (on due course) and 22234 (on answers) of DENR DAO 95-23, or the Implementing Rules of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995,35 clearly require that the parties involved in mining disputes be given the opportunity to be heard. These rules – which were already in effect36 during the time the dispute between the parties arose – flesh out the core requirement of due process; thus, a stark and unjustified contravention of the same would oust the errant tribunal of its jurisdiction and, in effect, render its decision null and void. …

………………………………….

WHAT HAPPENS IF A COURT MAKES A RULING IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS?

THE COURT IS OUSTED FROM ITS JURISDICTION.

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS IS A VIOLATION OF BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. WHERE THERE IS A VIOLATION OF BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, COURTS ARE OUSTED FROM THEIR JURISDICTION.

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party’s 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.38 (Emphases supplied)

Here, it has been 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 aforementioned provisions of DENR DAO 95-23. Thus, as correctly ruled by the DENR MAB and later affirmed by the CA, Mingson’s due process rights were violated, thereby rendering the POA’s Decision null and void.

……………………

WHEN MINGSON MINING APPEALED TO THE DENR MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD (MAB), IT DID NOT RAISE THE ISSUE ON DUE PROCESS. YET DENR MAB CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS IN ITS RULING. WAS DENR MAB CORRECT?

YES. MINGSON MINING, AFTER FILING ITS APPEAL, WROTE TO MAB AND IN SAID LETTER RAISED THE ISSUE ON DUE PROCESS. DENR MAB CAN CONSIDER SAID LETTER AS PART OF THE APPEAL. DENR MAB IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND THEREFORE NOT BOUND BY TECHNICAL RULES. ALSO, APPARENT LACK OF DUE PROCESS MAY BE RAISED AT ANY TIME IN THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE IT IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.

In this relation, the Court finds it apt to clarify that the DENR MAB did not err in taking cognizance of the due process issue. While such issue was not assigned as an error in Mingson’s Appeal39 dated July 27, 1996, the same was squarely raised in Mingson’s August 8, 1996 letter40 to the DENR MAB. Given the lack of any formal procedure on appeals at that time,41 the DENR MAB cannot be faulted for considering the letter and the issues raised therein as part of Mingson’s appeal. It must be added that the DENR MAB is not a court of law but an administrative body; hence, it is not bound by strict rules of procedure and evidence, and is allowed to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of each case speedily and objectively without resort to technical rules,42 as in this case.  

Besides, 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. In Salva v. Valle, 43 the Court pronounced that “[a] decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at anytime directly or collaterally by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked.” The Court sees no defensible reason as to why this principle should not be herein applied.  

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2014-0059-NOV-2014-APO CEMENT

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2014-0058: ALROBEN J. GOH, PETITIONER, VERSUS HON. LUCILO R. BAYRON AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 212584, 25 NOVEMBER 2014, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECT/S: COMELEC BUDGET; RECALL ELECTION (BRIEF TITLE:: GOH VS. HON. BAYRON AND COMELEC).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

We PARTIALLY REVERSE and SET ASIDE Resolution No. 9864 insofar as it directed the suspension of any and all proceedings in the recall petition. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE Resolution No. 9882, and DIRECT the Commission on Elections to immediately carry out the recall elections of Mayor Lucilo R. Bayron of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 7505.

This Decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

COMELEC SAYS THERE IS NO BUDGET IN THE 2014 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR THE CONDUCT OF RECALL ELECTION AND THEREFORE THEY CANNOT CONDUCT RECALL ELECTIONS. IS THIS CORRECT?

NO. THE 2014 GAA PROVIDES THE LINE ITEM APPROPRIATION TO ALLOW COMELEC TO CONDUCT RECALL ELECTIONS.

“We grant the petition. We hold that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882. The 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to allow the COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections. There is no need for supplemental legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall elections for 2014.”

……………………………………….

TO BE VALID AN APPROPRIATION MUST INDICATE A SPECIFIC AMOUNT AND A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. DOES THE PURPOSE ‘TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS’ COVER RECALL ELECTIONS”?

YES. THE PURPOSE MAY BE BROKEN DOWN INTO DIFFERENT RELATED SUB-CATEGORIES. THEREFORE THE PURPOSE “TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS” COVERS, EVEN IF NOT EXPRESSLY SPELLED OUT, REGULAR, SPECIAL AND RECALL ELECTIONS.

“Under these· factual circumstances, we find it difficult to justify the COMELEC ‘s reasons why it is unable to conduct recall elections in 2014 when the COMELEC was able to conduct recall elections in 2002 despite lack of the specific words “Conduct and supervision of x x x recall votes x x x” in the 2002 GAA. In the 2002 GAA, the phrase “Conduct and supervision of elections and other political exercises” was sufficient to fund the conduct of recall elections. In the 2014 GAA, there is a specific line item appropriation for the “Conduct and supervision of x x x recall votes x x x.”

More importantly, the COMELEC admits in its Resolution No. 9882 that the COMELEC has “a line item for the ‘Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites.”‘ This admission of the COMELEC is a correct interpretation of this specific budgetary appropriation.· To be valid, an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a specific purpose. However, the purpose may be specific even if it is broken down into different related sub-categories of the same nature. For example, the purpose can be to “conduct elections,” which even if not expressly spelled out covers regular, special, or recall elections. The purpose of the appropriation is still specific -to fund elections, which naturally and logically include, even if not expressly stated, not only regular but also special or recall elections.

………………………………………….

CAN COMELEC TAP ITS SAVINGS TO FUND THE CONDUCT OF RECALL ELECTIONS?

YES. IT CAN AUGMENT FROM SAVINGS ITS APPROPRIATIONS FOR PERSONNEL SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES. RECALL ELECTIONS ONLY NEED OPERATING EXEPENSES BECAUSE THE EXISTING PERSONNEL ARE THE SAME PERSONNEL WHO WILL EVALUATE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE RECALL PETITIONS.

However, contrary to the COMELEC’s assertion, the appropriations for personnel services and maintenance and other operating expenses falling under “Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites” constitute a line item which can be augmented from the COMELEC’s savings to fund the conduct of recall elections in 2014. The conduct of recall elections requires only operating expenses, not capital outlays. The COMELEC’s existing personnel in Puerto Princesa are the same personnel who will evaluate the sufficiency of the recall petitions. and conduct the recall elections.43

………………………………………….

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2014-0058-NOV-2014-GOH

CASE 2014-0055: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, -versus – THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, OMICO CORPORATION, EMILIO S. TENG AND TOMMY KIN HING TIA, Respondents; ASTRA SECURITIES CORPORATION, Petitioner, VERSUS OMICO CORPORATION, EMILIO S. TENG AND TOMMY KIN HING TIA, Respondents (G.R. No. 187702, G.R. No. 189014, 22 OCTOBER 2014, SERENO, J.) BRIEF TITLE: SEC VS. CA; OMICO CORP ET AL VS. CA..

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 187702 is EXPUNGED for lack of capacity of petitioner to file the suit.

The petition in G.R. No. 189014 is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 18 March 2009 and Resolution dated 9 July 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 106006 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING THE VALIDATION OF PROXIES, THE SEC OR THE REGULAR COURTS?

IF THEY ARE RELATED TO ELECTION CONTESTS, IT IS THE REGULAR COURTS WHO HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER THE INTERIM RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSIES. IN ALL OTHER CASES IT IS THE SEC WHO HAS JURISDICTION.

The Court explained that the power of the SEC to regulate proxies remains in place in instances when stockholders vote on matters other than the election of directors.35 The test is whether the controversy relates to such election. All matters affecting the manner and conduct of the election of directors are properly cognizable by the regular courts. Otherwise, these matters may be brought before the SEC for resolution based on the regulatory powers it exercises over corporations, partnerships and associations.

WAS IT PROPER FOR SEC TO FILE A PETITION QUESTIONING THE DECISION OF CA?

NO BECAUSE SEC IS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.

Calling to mind established jurisprudential principles, the Court therein ruled that quasi-judicial agencies do not have the right to seek the review of an appellate court decision reversing any of their rulings. 39 This is because they are not real parties-in-interest. Thus, the Court expunged the petition filed by the SEC for the latter’s lack of capacity to file the suit. So it must be in the instant cases.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2014-0056-OCT-2014-SEC

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.