De Pineda vs Peña (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW)

G.R. No. L-57665 July 2, 1990

ALEJA SIBAYAN VDA. DE PINEDA, CLARA SIBAYAN VDA. DE GADDI, and MIGUELA SIBAYAN RAMENTO, petitioners, 
vs.
The HON. TEODORO PEÑA, MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES; The HON. JUANITO FERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEO-SCIENCES; and the KM. 21 MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION; The BAGUIO GOLD MINING COMPANY, INC.; ELVIRA DE CARMELO and JOSEPH PALENGAOAN, respondents.

Rodolfo D. Dela Cruz for petitioners.

Emiliano L. Gayo and Honorato Y. Aquino for private respondents.

CORTES, J.:

FACTS:

This case originated from a protest case for alleged overlapping or encroachment between two mining claims.

ISSUE:

The issues to be resolved in this case are (1) whether or not public respondents have jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the "Ped" claim in a protest case of overlapping of mining claims; and (2) should public respondents have such jurisdiction, whether or not they committed grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction in declaring petitioners to have abandoned their mining claim.

RULING:

(1) Yes, 

Sec. 128. Issues Joined . . .

The Director, or the Secretary, in case of appeals, may motu proprio look into the validity of mining claims, whether raised as an issue or not.

It is established in jurisprudence that Congress may validly delegate to administrative agencies the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies [People v. Exconde, 101 Phil. 1125 (1957); Director of Forestry v. Munoz, G.R. No. L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 1183]. In order to be valid, the administrative regulation must be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, conform to the standards that the law prescribes [People v. Exconde, supra, citing Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 727 (1940); Pangasinan Transportation v. Public Service Commission, 70 Phil. 221 (1940)], and must relate solely to carrying into effect the general provisions of the law [U.S. v. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119 (1914)].

With these guidelines, Section 128 of the implementing rules invoked by public respondents as basis for their jurisdiction cannot be tainted with invalidity. First, it was issued by the Department Head pursuant to validly delegated rule-making powers. Second, it does not contravene the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 463, nor does it expand the coverage of the Decree. Section 128 merely prescribes a procedural rule to implement the general provisions of the enabling law. It does not amend or extend the provisions of the statute [People v. Maceren, G.R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977, 79 SCRA 450, citing University of Santo Tomas v. Board of Tax Appeals, 93 Phil. 376 (1953)].

Neither can it be maintained that such an implementing rule results in a denial of procedural due process, for it is axiomatic in administrative law that what the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard [Catura v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-27392, January 30,1971, 37 SCRA 303, citing De Borja v. Tan, 93 Phil. 167 (1953)]. In this case, petitioners were afforded the opportunity to be heard on the validity of the "Ped" mining claim when they submitted rebuttal evidence on appeal.

Section 128, being a valid implementing rule, has the force and effect of law. Thus, public respondents were duly empowered to inquire into the validity of the mining claims involved in the protest case, even if not raised in issue.

(2) Respondent committed grave abuse of dicretion.

Private respondents argue that the documents were not filed at the proper time since they were not formally offered in evidence when the case was still before the respondent Director, and were only submitted on appeal.

The contention is clearly untenable. Petitioners precisely were unaware that the validity of the "Ped" claim would be passed upon in the protest case since such was not raised as an issue. Hence it was only after the decision in the protest case was rendered that petitioners found the need to present evidence on appeal relating to the validity of the "Ped" claim.

Clearly, respondent Minister gravely abused his discretion when he disregarded the rebuttal evidence submitted by petitioners which otherwise would have had the effect of reversing respondent Director's finding.