Asaphil Construction and Development Corp. vs Vicente Tuason, Jr., Induplex Inc. and Mines Adjudication Board

Asaphil Construction and Development Corp. vs Vicente Tuason, Jr., Induplex Inc. 

and Mines Adjudication Board

G.R. No. 134030                                                                           April 25, 2006

Facts:

Tuazon entered into a Contract to Sell (1st contract) with Induplex wheren Induplex agreed to buy all the Perlite Ore that can be found and mined in Tuason's mining claim and in return, Induplex will assist Tuason to secure his rights over the mining claim. Then, Tuason executed an Agreement to Operate Mining Claims (2nd Contract) in favor of Asaphil. Tuason thereafter filed with the Bureau of Mines-DENR against Induplex and Asaphil for the nullity of the two contracts alleging that the stockholders of Induplex created Ibalon Mineral Resources Inc. and then extracted in Ibalon's mining claim and thereafter entered into a joint Venture with Grefco, Inc. which would violate their agreement.

Issue:

Whether or not DENR has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:

No, Section 7 of P.D. 1281 provides:

"Section 7. In addition to its regulatory and adjudicative functions over companies, partnerships or persons engaged in mining exploration, development and exploitation, development and exploitation, the Bureau of Mines shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:

(a) a mining property subject of different agreements entered into by the claim holder thereof with several mining operators;

(b) complaints from claimowners that the mining property subject of an operating agreement has not been placed into actual operations within the period stipulated therein; and

(c) cancellation and/or enforcement of mining contracts due to the refusal of the claimowner/operator to abide by the terms and conditions thereof."

Tuason's case based on its facts is not a mining dispute. the 2nd contract although a mining contract does not make a mining dispute, the resolution of its nullity is not based on Asaphil's violation of the conditions but due to Induplex's alleged violation in entering into a joint venture with Grefco Ltd. which is a judicial question. The nullity shall be determined by regular courts. "A judicial question is raised when the determination of the question involves the exercise of judicial function, which involves the determination of what the law is all about and what are the legal rights of the parties"