Carpio v Sulu Resources

Gr No 148267
August 8, 2002

Doctrine/Provision:

Article VIII Section 5: Powers of the Supreme Court – Power to promulgate rules; par 5 –
Enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts (transfer of
appeals as procedural matter)

Decisions and final orders of the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) are appealable to the
Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Although not expressly included in
the Rule, the MAB is unquestionably a quasi-judicial agency and stands in the same category as
those enumerated in its provisions.

Facts of the Case:

The case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The
respondent Sulu Resources Development Corporation filed a petition for Mines Production
Sharing Agreement (MPSA) No. MPSA-IV-131 covering certain areas in Antipolo, Rizal.
Petitioner Armando Carpio filed a counter claim alleging that his landholdings in Cupang and
Antipolo, Rizal will be covered by the respondent’s claim and thus he enjoys a preferential right
to explore and extract the quarry resources on his properties.

This petition was upheld but later on dismissed upon appeal by the responded to the Mines
Adjudication Board. Under Section 79 of RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995), the findings
of fact by the MAB as well as its decision or order shall be final and executory (Pearson v IAC).
The CA also refused to take jurisdiction over the case because under the same section petitions
for review on MAB decisions should be directed to the Supreme Court. Hence, this motion for
reconsideration.

Issue(s) of the Case:

Whether or not appeals from the Decision or Final Orders of the Mines Adjudication
Board should be made directly to the Supreme Court as contended by the respondent and the
Court of Appeals, or such appeals be first made to the Court of Appeals as contended by herein
petitioner. (Appellate jurisdiction over MAB decisions)

Held/Decision of the Case:

The respondents’ reliance on the preceding Pearsons case is misplaced. In Pearson, what
was under review was the ruling of the CFI to take cognizance of the case which had been earlier
decided by the MAB, not the MAB Decision itself which was promulgated by the CA under
Rule 43. The present petitioner seeks a review of the latter.

Santos, Ray Paolo B.

1E
 Moreover, in exercise of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court, it transfers to the
CA pending cases for review of decisions of quasi-judicial bodies. Such transfer relates only to
procedure and thus does not impair vested rights of the parties. Wherefore, in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the petition is granted and the case is reinstated
for the CA to resolve it.

Santos, Ray Paolo B.

1E