Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CELESTIAL NICKEL MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION v. MACROASIA CORPORATION

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 195580 2014-04-21	NARRA NICKEL MINING v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP. VELASCO JR., J.
We held in Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corp.:[53]
	GR No. 183573 2012-07-18	DIZON COPPER SILVER MINES v. DR. LUIS D. DIZON PEREZ, J.
Anent the issue regarding the approval of MPSA-P-III-05-05, it must be emphasized herein that under Republic Act No. 7942, the DENR Secretary has been conferred with the exclusive and primary jurisdiction to approve mineral agreements, such as MPSAs.[89] In the seminal case Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corporation, this Court described such function as purely administrative in nature and one that is fully within the DENR Secretary's competence and discretion. Concededly, it is the DENR Secretary, thru the MGB, who is in the best position to determine to whom mineral agreements are granted.[90]
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2009-09-17	PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
Corollary to the principle of separation of powers is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction that the courts will DEFER to the decisions of the administrative offices and agencies by reason of their expertise and experience in the matters assigned to them. Administrative decisions on matters within the jurisdiction of administrative bodies are to be respected and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law.[21]
	GR No. 178188 2009-08-14	OLYMPIC MINES v. PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION BRION, J.
Citing recent jurisprudence, particularly Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corporation,[11] the Court ruled that Section 77(a) refers to an "adverse claim, protest, or opposition to an application for a mineral agreement." Notably, even Justice Tinga, in his dissent, conceded that Section 77(a) of the Mining Act does not apply to Platinum's complaint.[12]
	GR No. 179674 2009-07-28	PYRO COPPER MINING CORPORATION v. MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Olympic Mines and Development Corporation v. Platinum Group Metals Corporation[43] citing Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corporation,[44] this Court made the following pronouncements as regards paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 77 of Republic Act No. 7942: In Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corporation, et al., this Court speaking through Justice Velasco, specified the kind of disputes that fall under Section 77(a) of the Mining Act:
	GR No. 178188 2009-05-08	OLYMPIC MINES v. PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION BRION, J.
In Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation v. Macroasia Corporation, et al.,[36] this Court, speaking through Justice Velasco, specified the kind of disputes that fall under Section 77(a) of the Mining Act:The phrase "disputes involving rights to mining areas" refers to any adverse claim, protest, or opposition to an application for a mineral agreement.
	GR No. 170689 2009-03-17	PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA-PTGWO) v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[59] "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.[60] The interest of the party must also be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.[61] Real interest, on the other hand, means a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.[62]