ISSUE:

SR Metals, Inc. v. Reyes Whether or not there is a correct interpretation of the 50,000 MT limit.

HELD:
FACTS:
No. There are two different laws governing small-scale mining: PD
Each of the petitioners was awarded a 2-year Small- Scale Mining
1899 and RA 7076. According to Section 1 of PD 1899:
Permit (SSMP) by the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board of Agusan
del Norte; they were allowed to extract Nickel and Cobalt (Ni-Co) in a
Small-scale mining refers to any single unit mining operation having
20-hectare mining site in Sitio Bugnang, Brgy. La Fraternidad, Tubay, an annual production of not more than 50,000 metric tons of ore and
Agusan del Norte. The EMB sent the mining corporations a Notice of satisfying the following requisites:
Violation informing them that they had exceeded the allowed annual
1. The working is artisanal, whether open cast or shallow underground
volume of 150,000 MTs combined production as their stockpile
mining, without the use of sophisticated mining equipment;
inventory of Nickeliferous ore had already total 177,297 dry metric tons
2. Minimal investment on infrastructures and processing plant;
(DMT). Then, DENR Secretary Angelo T. Reyes issued a Cease and
3. Heavy reliance on manual labor; and
Desist Order (CDO) against the mining corporations suspending their 4. Owned, managed or controlled by an individual or entity qualified
operations for their operations for the following reasons: under existing mining laws, rules and regulations.
1. The excess in 1) annual production of SR Metals, Inc., 2) maximum
While under Section 3(b) of RA 7076, small-scale mining refers to
capitalization, and, 3) labor cost to equipment utilization of 1:1 is, by
'mining activities which rely heavily on manual labor using simple
itself, a violation of existing laws.
implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining
2. The ECCs issued in favor of San R Construction Corporation and equipment.' Significantly, this definition does not provide for annual
Galeo Equipment Corporation have no legal basis and [are] therefore extraction limit unlike in PD 1899.
considered null and void from the beginning. Similarly, the small scale
mining permits that were issued by reason of such ECCs are likewise
DOJ Opinion No. 74, Series of 2006 concluded that as nothing from
null and void.
RA 7076 speaks of an annual production limit, Section 1 of PD 1899
should be considered impliedly repealed by RA 7076, the later law.
DOJ categorically concluded that the term 'ore' should be confined However, while these two laws tackle the definition of what small-scale
only to Ni-Co, that is, excluding soil and other materials that are of no
mining is, both have different objects upon which the laws shall be
economic value to the mining corporations. This is considering that
applied to. PD 1899 applies to individuals, partnerships and
their ECCs explicitly specified '50,000 MTs of Ni-Co ore.' The mining
corporations while RA 7076 applies to cooperatives.
corporations then filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with
prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction,
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of DENR in issuing the The DENR, being the agency mandated to protect the environment
CDO but was denied the mining corporations' petition, not only
and the country's natural resources, is authoritative on interpreting the
because the ECCs have been mooted by their expiration, but also due
50,000- MT limit. MAO No. MRD-41 specifies measuring the 'run-of-
to its recognition of the power of the DENR to issue the CDO as the
mine ore,' meaning the ore as it emerges from the mine, i.e., before
agency reposed with the duty of managing and conserving the
treatment. This definition is congruent with RA 7942 or The Philippine
country's resources under Executive Order 192. Mining Act of 1995.
 League of Provinces of the Philippines v. DENR
G.R. No. 175368. April 11, 2013
FACTS:
Golden Falcon filed with the DENR an Application for Financial and
Technical Assistance Agreement in Bulacan.
Their subsequent applications and appeals were later denied by the
DENR.
While Golden Falcon's appeal was pending, Eduardo D. Mercado,
Benedicto S. Cruz, Gerardo R. Cruz and Liberato Sembrano filed with
the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of
Bulacan their respective Applications for Quarry Permit (AQP), which
covered the same area
Atlantic Mines and Trading Corporation (AMTC) filed with the PENRO
of Bulacan an Application for Exploration Permit (AEP) covering 5,281
hectares of the area covered by Golden Falcon's Application for
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement.6
Director Cabantog, who was the concurrent Chairman of the
Provincial Mining Regulatory Board PMRB, endorsed to the Provincial
Governor of Bulacan, Governor Josefina M. dela Cruz, the aforesaid
Applications for Quarry Permit that had apparently been converted to
Applications for Small-Scale Mining Permit of Eduardo D. Mercado,
Benedicto S. Cruz, Gerardo R. Cruz and Lucila S. Valdez (formerly
Liberato Sembrano).
August 10, 2005, Governor Dela Cruz issued the corresponding
Small-Scale Mining Permits in favor of Eduardo D. Mercado,
Benedicto S. Cruz, Gerardo R. Cruz and Lucila S. Valdez
AMTC appealed to respondent DENR Secretary the grant of the
aforesaid Small-Scale Mining Permits
August 8, 2006, respondent DENR Secretary rendered a Decision14 in
favor of AMTC. the Small-Scale Mining Permits granted by the PMRB
and the Governor were null and void. On the other hand, the DENR
Secretary declared that AMTC filed its Application for Exploration
Permit when the area was already open to other mining applicants;
thus, AMTC’s Application for Exploration Permit was valid. Moreover,
the DENR Secretary held that the questioned Small-Scale Mining
Permits were issued in violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 7076 and
beyond the authority of the Provincial Governor pursuant to Section
43 of R.A. No. 7942, because the area was never proclaimed to be
under the People's Small-Scale Mining Program.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Section 17(B)(3)(III) of R.A. No. 7160 and Section
24 of R.A. No. 7076 are unconstitutional for providing for executive
control and infringing upon the local autonomy of provinces.
(2) Whether or not, the act of respondent in nullifying, voiding and
cancelling the small-scale mining permits amounts to executive
control, not merely supervision and usurps the devolved powers of all
provinces.
HELD:
(1) No. In this case, respondent DENR Secretary has the authority
to nullify the Small-Scale Mining Permits issued by the Provincial
Governor of Bulacan, as the DENR Secretary has control over the
PMRB, and the implementation of the Small-Scale Mining
Program is subject to control by respondent DENR. Paragraph 1
of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides that "the
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State."
Under said provision, the DENR has the duty to control and
supervise the exploration, development, utilization and
conservation of the country's natural resources. Hence, the
enforcement of small-scale mining law in the provinces is made
subject to the supervision, control and review of the DENR under the
Local Government Code of 1991, while the People’s Small-Scale
Mining Act of 1991 provides that the People’s Small-Scale Mining
Program is to be implemented by the DENR Secretary in coordination
with other concerned local government agencies. The Court has
clarified that the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the
Constitution Art. X, Sec. 2 refers to the administrative autonomy
of local government units or the decentralization of government
authority. It does not make local governments sovereign within
the State. The Local Government Code did not fully devolve the
enforcement of the small-scale mining law to the provincial
government, as its enforcement is subject to the supervision, control
and review of the DENR, which is in charge, subject to law and higher
authority, of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control
and supervise the exploration, development, utilization of the country's
natural resources.
Bacaltos Coal Mines v. CA
G.R. No. 114091 June 29, 1995
FACTS:
In an “Authorization,” petitioner Bacaltos authorized Savellon, to
use the coal operating contract of Bacaltos Coal Mine of which
he is the proprietor, “For any legitimate purpose that it may serve”
and particularly: (1) to acquire purchase orders; (2) to engage in
trading; (3) to collect all receivables due or in arrears; (4) to
extend to any person or company by substitution the same extent
of authority that is granted to Rene Savellon; (5) in connection with
the preceding paragraphs to execute and sign documents,
contracts, and other pertinent papers.
In 1988, a Trip Charter Party was executed between Bacaltos Coal
Mines (represented by Savellon) and San Miguel. The agreement
was that For Php 650,000 to be paid within seven days after the
execution of the contract, it "lets, demises" the vessel to charterer
SMC "For three round trips to Davao." The vessel was able to
make only one trip, so SMC filed an action for specific
performance.
Petitioners alleged that Savellon was not their Chief Operating
Officer and that the powers granted to him are only those clearly
expressed in the Authorization which do not include the power to
enter into any contract with SMC.
ISSUE:
WON Savellon was duly authorized by the petitioners to enter into the
Trip Charter Party.
RULING:
NO. The broadest scope of Savellon's authority is limited to the
use of the coal operating contract and the clause cannot
contemplate any other power not included in the enumeration or
which are unrelated either to the power to use the coal operating
contract or to those already enumerated. In short, while the clause
allows some room for flexibility, it can comprehend only additional
prerogatives falling within the primary power and within the same class
as those enumerated. There is no evidence at all that Bacaltos
Coal Mines as a coal mining company owns and operates
vessels, and even if it owned any such vessels, that it was
allowed to charter or lease them. Also, the Authorization is not a
general power of attorney. It is a special power of attorney for it
refers to a clear mandate specially authorizing the performance
of a specific power and of express acts subsumed therein.
Furthermore, had SMC exercised due diligence and prudence, it
should have known in no time that there is absolutely nothing on
the Face of the Authorization that confers upon Savellon the
authority to enter into any Trip Charter Party
Before this Court determines the validity of an act of a co-equal and
coordinate branch of the Government, it bears emphasis that
ingrained in our jurisprudence is the time-honored principle that a
statute is presumed to be valid. This presumption is rooted in the
doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon the three
coordinate departments of the Government a becoming courtesy for
each other's acts. This Court, however, may declare a law, or portions
thereof, unconstitutional where a petitioner has shown a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, leaving no doubt or hesitation
in the mind of the Court.
(2) No. The Court finds that the decision of the DENR Secretary was
rendered in accordance with the power of review granted to the DENR
Secretary in the resolution of disputes, which is provided for in Section
24 of R.A. No. 707651 and Section 22 of its Implementing Rules and
Regulations. The decision of the DENR Secretary, declaring that the
Application for Exploration Permit of AMTC was valid and may be
given due course, and canceling the Small-Scale Mining Permits
issued by the Provincial Governor, emanated from the power of
review granted to the DENR Secretary under R.A. No. 7076 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations. The DENR Secretary's power
to review and decide the issue on the validity of the issuance of
the Small-Scale Mining Permits by the Provincial Governor as
recommended by the PMRB, is a quasi-judicial function, which
involves the determination of what the law is, and what the legal
rights of the contending parties are, with respect to the matter in
controversy and, on the basis thereof and the facts obtaining, the
adjudication of their respective rights. The DENR Secretary
exercises quasi-judicial function under R.A. No. 7076 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations to the extent necessary in
settling disputes, conflicts or litigations over conflicting claims. This
quasi-judicial function of the DENR Secretary can neither be equated
with "substitution of judgment" of the Provincial Governor in issuing
Small-Scale Mining Permits nor "control" over the said act of the
Provincial Governor as it is a determination of the rights of AMTC over
conflicting claims based on the law.