[G.R. No. 148267.

August 8, 2002]
ARMANDO C. CARPIO, petitioner, vs. SULU RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.
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:
The respondent filed a petition for Mines Production Sharing Agreement
(MPSA) covering certain areas in Antipolo, Rizal. Petitioner filed an
opposition/adverse claim thereto, alleging that his landholdings in Cupang
and Antipolo, Rizal will be covered by respondent’s claim, thus he enjoys a
preferential right to explore and extract the quarry resources on his
properties. The Panel of Arbitrators of the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau
of the DENR rendered a Resolution upholding petitioner’s
opposition/adverse claim. Respondent appealed. Meanwhile, petitioner
filed a motion to dismiss appeal on the ground of respondent’s failure to
comply with the requirements of the New Mining Act’s Implementing Rules
and Regulations.
On June 20, 1997, the Mines Adjudication Board rendered the assailed
Order dismissing petitioner’s opposition/adverse claim. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration of said Order which was denied by the Board. A
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 43, seeking a reversal of the
MAB Decision was filed. Citing Section 79 of Chapter XIII of the Philippine
Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942), the CA ruled that it did not have jurisdiction
to review the Decision of the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB). The
adjudication of conflicting mining claims is completely administrative in
nature. Under Section 79 of RA 7942, “the findings of fact by the MAB as
well as its decision or order shall be final and executory.”

ISSUE
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.

HELD:
The petition is meritorious. We clarify. Factual controversies are usually
involved in administrative actions; and the CA is prepared to handle such
issues because, unlike this Court, it is mandated to rule on questions of
fact.
In Metro Construction, we observed that not only did the CA have
appellate jurisdiction over CIAC decisions and orders, but the review of
such decisions included questions of fact and law.
At the very least when factual findings of the MAB are challenged or
alleged to have been made in grave abuse of discretion as in the present
case, the CA may review them, consistent with the constitutional duty of the
judiciary. To summarize, there are sufficient legal footings authorizing a
review of the MAB Decision under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
First,
Section 30 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that
“[n]o law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
consent.” On the other hand, Section 79 of RA No. 7942 provides that
decisions of the MAB may be reviewed by this Court on a “petition for
review by certiorari.” This provision is obviously an expansion of the Court’s
appellate jurisdiction, an expansion to which this Court has not consented.
Indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging the appellate jurisdiction
of this Court would unnecessarily burden it.
Second,
When the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power,
transfers to the CA pending cases involving a review of a quasi-judicial
body’s decisions, such transfer relates only to procedure; hence, it does not
impair the substantive and vested rights of the parties. The aggrieved
party’s right to appeal is preserved; what is changed is only the procedure
by which the appeal is to be made or decided. The parties still have a
remedy and a competent tribunal to grant this remedy.
Third,
The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure included Rule 43 to provide a
uniform rule on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies. Under the rule,
appeals from their judgments and final orders are now required to be
brought to the CA on a verified petition for review.
A quasi-judicial agency or body has been defined as an organ of
government, other than a court or legislature, which affects the rights of
private parties through either adjudication or rule-making.
MAB falls under this definition; hence, it is no different from the other quasi-
judicial bodies enumerated under Rule 43. Besides, the introductory words
in Section 1 of Circular No. 1-91 --“among these agencies are”
-- indicate that the enumeration is not exclusive or conclusive and
acknowledge the existence of other quasi-judicial agencies which, though
not expressly listed, should be deemed included therein.
Fourth,
The Court realizes that under Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 129 as amended
by RA No. 7902, factual controversies are usually involved in decisions of
quasi-judicial bodies; and the CA, which is likewise tasked to resolve
questions of fact, has more elbow room to resolve them. By including
questions of fact among the issues that may be raised in an appeal from
quasi-judicial agencies to the CA, Section 3 of Revised Administrative
Circular No. 1-95 and Section 3 of Rule 43 explicitly expanded the list of
such issues. According to Section 3 of Rule 43, “[a]n appeal under this
Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the
manner herein provided whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of
law, or mixed questions of fact and law.” Hence, appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies even only on questions of law may be brought to the CA. Fifth,
the judicial policy of observing the hierarchy of courts dictates that direct
resort from administrative agencies to this Court will not be entertained,
unless the redress desired cannot be obtained from the appropriate lower
tribunals, or unless exceptional and compelling circumstances justify
availment of a remedy falling within and calling for the exercise of our
primary jurisdiction.
In brief, appeals from decisions of the MAB shall be taken to the CA
through petitions for review in accordance with the provisions of Rule 43 of
the 1997 Rules of Court. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED.