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

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
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"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more