Home

Business Contracts

Legal & Corporate Forms

Laws

Jurisprudence

Hotels in Big... Hotels in Kiev Hotels in St...

US$32 US$7 US$59 kayak.com

Hotels in Big... Hotels in... Hotels in...

US$32 US$8 US$111 kayak.com

SPONSORED SEARCHES

Criminal and Law Civil Law

Legal Guardian Restraining Order

Supreme Court Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 : February 03, 2009] APEX MINING CO. INC. V.
SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., ET AL.) [G.R. NO. 152619-20] (BALITE
COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING
CORP., ET AL.) [G.R. NO. 152870-71] (THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS
MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (CHAIRMAN), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO
MARCELO (MEMBER) AND DIRECTOR HORATIO RAMOS (MEMBER) V. SOUTHEAST
MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP.) :

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 : February 03, 2009]

APEX MINING CO. INC. V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., ET

AL.)

[G.R. NO. 152619-20]

(BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE V. SOUTHEAST

MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., ET AL.)

[G.R. NO. 152870-71]

(THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O.
RAMOS (CHAIRMAN), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (MEMBER) AND
DIRECTOR HORATIO RAMOS (MEMBER) V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD
MINING CORP.)

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated
February 3, 2009

"G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 (Apex Mining Co. Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao
Gold Mining Corp., et al.)

G.R. No. 152619-20 (Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative v. Southeast

Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., et al.)

G.R. No. 152870-71 (The Mines Adjudication Board and Its Members, The Hon.
Victor O. Ramos (Chairman), Undersecretary Virgilio Marcelo (Member) and
Director Horatio Ramos (Member) v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.)

Before Us is a Motion For Issuance Of A Show Cause Order Why Respondents Mines
Adjudication Board (MAB) and Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC)
Should Not Be Cited For Contempt filed by respondent Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining
Corporation (SEM) on 24 September 2008.

In its motion, SEM avers that the validity of Proclamation No. 297, which segregated
8,100 hectares from a forest reserve and declared the same as mineral reservation, is
still pending before the Court. SEM cites a newspaper article, which allegedly quoted an
official of the PMDC (the corporate arm of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources) as saying that a portion of 8,100-hectare mineral reservation is open for
bidding to interested mining investors. It also introduces another newspaper article
which published the Invitation To Apply For Eligibility And To Bid for the area which is
the subject matter of these consolidated cases. SEM contends that PMDC's purported
act of bidding out mining operations within the disputed mineral reservation is an
affront to the Court's judicial authority over the instant cases; thus, it asks the Court
that the DENR and PMDC be cited for contempt.

While MAB is mentioned by SEM in its motion, the latter, however, fails to impute any
contumacious act to the former. Furthermore, in SEM's prayer, MAB is not among those
entities that SEM seeks to be cited for contempt.

We deny SEM's motion.

Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court, such
conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or

to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or their witnesses during litigation.[1]

There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct contempt and indirect
contempt. Direct contempt is committed when a person is guilty of misbehavior in the
presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or
refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition

when lawfully required to do so.[2] Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that

which is committed out of the presence of the court. Any improper conduct tending,
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice

would constitute indirect contempt.[3] Although SEM does not categorically spell it
out, it appears that the allegations of SEM against PMDC and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), if true, would fall under indirect contempt.

The proceedings for Indirect Contempt are provided for under Section 4, Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court, to wit:

"Section 4. - Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu

proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order
or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt.

In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be

commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and
certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full
compliance with requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions
in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related
to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall
allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided
separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the
contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision."

As may be gleaned above, the charge of indirect contempt can be initiated in two (2)
ways only, namely: 1) motu proprio by the court itself; or 2) by filing a verified
petition, with full compliance with the requirements therefor.

In the instant recourse, since the contempt proceedings have been initiated by SEM,
the second mode of filing an indirect contempt charge is pertinent.

Prior to the amendment of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a mere motion without

complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings was tolerated by the courts.[4]
At present, Rule 71, Section 4, mandates that except for indirect contempt proceedings
initiated motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges,
such as this one, shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with

the requirements for initiatory pleadings.[5] Rigid application of such procedural

guidelines is mandatory considering that proceedings against a person alleged to be

guilty of contempt are commonly treated as criminal in nature.[6] Thus, in Regalado v.

Go,[7] the Court elaborated:

It bears to stress that the power to punish for contempt is not limitless. It
must be used sparingly with caution, restraint, judiciousness, deliberation,
and due regard to the provisions of the law and the constitutional rights of
the individual.

The limitations in the exercise of the power to punish for indirect contempt
are delineated by the procedural guidelines specified under Section 4, Rule
71 of the Rules of Court. Strict compliance with such procedural
guidelines is mandatory considering that proceedings against
person alleged to be guilty of contempt are commonly treated as
criminal in nature.

As explained by Justice Floreaz Regalado. 36 the filing of a verified petition

that has complied with the requirements for the filing of initiatory pleading,
is mandatory, and thus states:

1. This new provision clarifies with a regularity norm the proper

procedure for commencing contempt proceedings. While such
proceeding has been classified as special civil action under the
former Rules, the heterogenous practice tolerated by the courts,
has been for any party to file a motion without paying any
docket or lawful fees therefore and without complying with the
requirements for initiatory pleadings, which is now required in
the second paragraph of this amended section.

xxxx

Henceforth, except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated

motu propio by order of or a formal charge by the offended
court, all charges shall be commenced by a verified petition with
full compliance with the requirements therefore and shall be
disposed in accordance with the second paragraph of this
section.

In Oliveros v. Sision,[8] the Court once again stressed that filing of indirect contempt
must be initiated through a verified petition and not by mere motion:

Charges for indirect contempt are commenced by a verified petition with

supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers
involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing
initiatory pleadings x x x. A mere motion to cite a party in contempt
does not conform with the Rules and should not be entertained.

In the instant motion, SEM commenced indirect contempt charge against PMDC and
DENR through a motion instead of filing a verified petition. Unfortunately, this
procedural lapse is fatal and warrants the denial of SEM's motion to cite PMDC and
DENR for contempt.

As to SEM's prayer, incorporated in its Motion For Issuance Of A Show Cause Order Why
Respondents Mines Adjudication Board(MAB) and Philippine Mining Development
Corporation (PMDC) Should Not Be Cited For Contempt, to enjoin PMDC and the DENR
from conducting any bidding for the exploration, development and mining operations
within the mineral reservation subject matter of these cases, it appears in the records
[9] that there was a separate Urgent Motion For The Issuance Of A Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) And/Or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by SEM on 27
November 2008, which was also aimed at restraining PMDC and the DENR from
conducting any bidding for the same area, and considering that the Urgent Motion For
The Issuance Of A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) And/Or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction has not been submitted for resolution, as the other parties are still to
comment on the same pursuant to the Court's Resolution dated 2 December 2008, said
prayer of SEM to restrain PMDC and the DENR from conducting any bidding for the
same area is held, in abeyance.

IN VIEW THEREOF, Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation's motion to cite

PMDC and DENR for contempt is DENIED. "

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

[1] Quinio v. Com of Appeals, 390 Phil. 852, 859 (2000).

[2] Barredo-Fuentes v, Albamacin, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1587, 15 April 2005,

456 SCRA 120, 130-131.

[3] Id. at 131.

[4] Nedia v. Lavina, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1957, 26 September 2005, 471 SCRA

10, 17.

[5] Id.

[6] Regalado v. Go, G.R. No. 167988, 6 February 2007. 515 SCRA 616, 632-

633.

[7] Id.

[8] A.M. No. RTJ-07-2050, 27 June 2007, 525 SCRA 795, 803.

[9] Rollo G.R.No. 152613, pp. 1035-1038.

Back to Home | Back to Main

SPONSORED SEARCHES

gold mining gold mine

coal mining and mining

SPONSORED SEARCHES

and mining environment mining

mining new gold new the

February-2009 Jurisprudence

[G.R. NO. 181033 : February 23, 2009] PEOPLE OE THE PHILIPPINES VS.
ELEUTERIO DE TOMAS

[OCA IPI No. 08-2973-P : February 18, 2009] OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR V. CLERK OF COURT RAY U. VELASCO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY

[G.R. No. 184051 : February 16, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.

FEDERITO CAVE Y NOVERO, ET AL.

[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2084 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2260-RTJ) : February 16,
2009] SPOUSES MAMERTO AND DELIA TIMADO, COMPLAINANTS, V. JUDGE
ROSARIO B. TORRECAMPO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, PILI,
CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 185180 : February 12, 2009] NARCISO DELOS SANTOS Y INOCENCIO
V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

[A.M. No. RTJ-06-2006 : February 11, 2009] FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 05-2302-
RTJ) -ANIFEL QUIJANO-VACUNADOR V. JUDGE ANACLETO L. CAMINADE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, CEBU CITY

[G.R. No. 152154 : February 10, 2009] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1496-RTJ : February 09, 2009] DOMINGO C. GAMALINDA
V. JUDGE ARSENIO P. ADRIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 63,
TARLAC CITY, JUDGE MARVIN B. MANGINO AND CLERK OF COURT III JULIETA M.
BAUTISTA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), BRANCH 1, TARLAC CITY

[G.R. Nos. 169408 & 170144 : February 09, 2009] HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES &
CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD. V. DYNAMIC PLANNERS & CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION

[G.R. Nos. 169829-30 : February 04, 2009] STEEL CORPORATION OF THE

PHILIPPINES V. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR
UNIONS

[G.R. No. 185047 : February 04, 2009] MARISSA LICUP Y LUCENTE V. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES

[G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 : February 03, 2009] APEX MINING CO. INC. V.
SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP., ET AL.) [G.R. NO. 152619-20]
(BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO
GOLD MINING CORP., ET AL.) [G.R. NO. 152870-71] (THE MINES ADJUDICATION
BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (CHAIRMAN),
UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (MEMBER) AND DIRECTOR HORATIO
RAMOS (MEMBER) V. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP.)

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1934-MTJ : February 03, 2009] THOMAS J. O'DONELL, ET
AL. V. JUDGE NICOLAS V. FADUL, JR. [ACTING] MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT,
MABITAC, LAGUNA); AND A.M. OCA IPI NO. 08-1977-MTJ [FORMERLY A.C. NO.
7613] (THOMAS O'DONELL, ET AL. V. HON. NICOLAS V. FADUL, JR.

[G.R. No. 185898 : February 03, 2009] REYNOLAN T. SALES, PETITIONER,

VERSUS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) AND ROQUE
R. ABLAN. JR., RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 169365 : February 02, 2009] SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO AND
LIWANAG SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VERSUS THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CRISELDA MAS, ATTY. LORENZO 0. NAVARRO, JR. AND JESSE LANTORIA,
RESPONDENTS; AND G.R NO. 169669 - SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO AND
LIWANAG SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. LORENZO O. NAVARRO, JR.,
CRISELDA MAS AND JESSE LANTORIA, RESPONDENTS

[G.R. No. 174535 : February 02, 2009] LT. COL. RIZALDY C. RAGITAL V. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES

[G.R. No. 173100 : March 11, 2009] RENE CASTAÑOS V. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

Copyright © 2005-06 - 2019 ClubJuris