You are on page 1of 2

ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO v. CA, SEC.

OF
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.
November 7, 1979 | Aquino, J. | Due process Cardinal Primary
Rights
SUMMARY: Zambales Chromite group sought to be declared the
rightful locators of 69 mining claims in Zambales.
Director of Mines Gozon dismissed the case.
Petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Natural Resources
(SANR). Pending appeal, Gozon was appointed as the SANR.
He then reviewed his own decision and dismissed petitioners
appeal. Petitioners brought the case to the CFI and it ruled that
delicadeza is not a ground for disqualification of the Secretary to
review his own decision.
The CA reversed on the basis that the petitioners had validly
located the said mining claims. However, on MR, it set aside its
first decision on the ground that Sec. Gozons decision was void,
and remanded the case to the Minister of Natural Resources to
review Gozons decision.
SC held that Sec. Gozon acted with grave abuse of discretion in
reviewing his decision as Director of Mines.
DOCTRINE: The reviewing officer must be other than the officer
whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no
different view or there would be no real review of the case. The
decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view;
inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would
not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case. That is
the obvious, elementary reason behind the disqualification of a
trial judge, who is promoted to the appellate court, to sit in any
case wherein his decision or ruling is the subject of review
FACTS:
Zambales Chromite Mining Co., Inc. (group of Gonzalo Nava,
petitioners) filed a case and sought to be declared the rightful
and prior locators and possessors of 69 claims located in Sta.
Cruz, Zambales. Respondents filed a demurrer to evidence.
Oct. 5, 1960 On the basis of petitioners evidence, Director
Gozon dismissed the case. He found that the petitioners did not

discover any mineral nor staked and located mining claims in


accordance with law. He further ruled that the mining claims of
the groups of Gregorio Martinez and Pablo Pabiloa
(respondents, MP group) were duly located and registered.
Petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources (SANR). Pending appeal, Director Gozon
was appointed as SANR. Instead of inhibiting himself, he
decided the appeal as if he was adjudicating the case for the
first time. He acted as trial judge and appellate judge in the
same case.
He ruled that the petitioners had abandoned the disputed
mining claims, while, on the other hand the MP group had
validly located said claims. Appeal was dismissed.
Sept. 20, 1963 Petitioners filed a Complaint in the CFI of
Zambales, assailing Sec. Gozons decision. They prayed to be
declared the prior locators and possessors of said claims. CFI
sustained Sec. Gozons decision and dismissed the case. The
disqualification of a judge to review his own decision or ruling
(Sec. 1, Rule 137, ROC) does not apply to administrative
bodies.
o There is no provision in the Mining Law disqualifying the
SANR from deciding an appeal from a case which he had
decided as Director of Mines. Delicadeza is not a ground for
disqualification. Petitioners did not seasonably seek to
disqualify Sec. Gozon from deciding their appeal. There was
no evidence that he acted arbitrarily and with bias,
prejudice, animosity or hostility to the petitioners.
CA Reversed. The petitioners were the rightful locators and
possessors of the 69 mining claims. They had discovered
minerals and had validly located said claims and there was no
sufficient basis for Sec. Gozons finding that the claims of the
MP Group were validly located.
MP Group on MR: CA should have respected the factual
findings of the Director of Mines and the SANR on the theory
that the facts found in the administrative decisions cannot be
disturbed on appeal to the courts and cited RA 4388 which
amended the Mining Law.
Petitioners opposition to MR: Sec. Gozons decision was
void and, therefore, the factual findings therein are not binding
on the courts.
The same 6th Division set aside its first decision. The first
decision was reconsidered not on the ground advanced by the
MP Group (factual findings) but on the ground raised in
Petitioners opposition. The CA remanded the case to the

Minister of Natural Resources for another review of Director


Gozons decision.
Parties filed another MR. Petitioners prayed that the first
decision be reinstated and abandoned their prayer that the
case be retuned to the Minister of Natural Resources. The MP
Group insisted that the factual findings of the Director be
upheld. CA denied both motions.
SC: While the petitioners in their appellants brief in the CA
prayed that Sec. Gozons be declared void and that the case be
returned to the SANR for another review of Dir. Gozons order,
in their appellants brief in this Court, they changed that relief
and they now pray that the 2nd decision of the CA (referring the
case to the Minister of Natural Resources) be declared void
and that its first decision be affirmed. On the other hand, the
MP Group prayed for the affirmance of the CFI decision,
contrary to their prayer from the 2nd CA decision that the case
be referred to the Minister of Natural Resources.
The inconsistent positions of the parties, induced by the
contradictory decisions of the CA, constitute the peculiar twist
of this case in the SC.

RULING: Set aside decisions of SANR, CFI, and 1st CA decision.


AFFIRMED 2nd CA decision, returning the case to the Minister of
Natural Resources directing the appeal to the Minister be resolved
de novo (from the beginning) with the least delay as provided for
in PD 309. REVERSED the 2nd part of 2nd CA decision stating the
further proceedings will be taken in the trial court, for being
unwarranted because the TC does not retain any jurisdiction over
the case once remanded to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Whether Sec. Gozon acted with grave abuse of discretion in


reviewing his decision as Director of Mines YES, this is a
mockery of administrative justice.
The Mining Law (CA 137) provides that the decision of the
Director of Mines may be appealed to the SANR. In case any
one of the parties should disagree from the decision of either,
the matter may be taken to the court of competent jurisdiction.
Undoubtedly, the provision contemplates that the
Secretary should be a person different from the Director
of Mines. The reviewing officer must be other than the officer
whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no
different view or there would be no real review of the case. The
decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view;
inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he
would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the
case. That is the obvious, elementary reason behind the
disqualification of a trial judge, who is promoted to the
appellate court, to sit in any case wherein his decision or ruling
is the subject of review.
Sec. Gozon should have asked his Undersecretary to undertake
the review. Petitioners were deprived of due process, meaning
fundamental fairness, when Sec. Gozon reviewed his own
decision as Director of Mines.
Barredo, J., Concurring:
When the secretary is disqualified, he should be deemed as
absent or incapacitated to ask, hence the undersecretary
should be correspondingly deemed as the secretary for the
purposes of the case in question.

You might also like