GREENHILLS MINING COMPANY vs.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, GREEN VALLEY

FACTS:

 Mining claims were previously located and registered with the office of the Mining recorder at Iba
Zambles under the provision of the Phil. Bill of 1992.
 However, it were abandoned due to the failure to pursue their claims and to perform annual
assessment works.
 1956- President Magsaysay issued a Proclamation no. 245 establishing the Southern Zambales Forest
Reserve covering the 37,000 hectares.
 Petitioner relocated the previously abandoned mining claims inside the reservation.
 Petitioner filed with the Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) an application for prospecting permit
within the reservation which was granted.
 Private Respondent applied with BFD for a prospecting permit also within the reservation which was
also granted.
 Then applied BMGS for an exploration permit over the same area covered by its prospecting
permit.It was referred to the BMGS/MLTSD and upon its verification it found that the area applied for
by Private Respondent were in conflict with Petitioner group of claims, but still it was granted.
 Petitioner filed protest with the BFD and BMGS asking for the cancellations of Private
Responded prospecting and exploration permit.
 The Directors of BFD and BFGS issued an order amending of Private Respondent prospecting permit.
 Private Respondent filed an appeal to the MNR which was held that since the case involved
determination of the mining rights of the parties, the investigation and resolution was within the
original jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Science.
 Unsatisfied, Private Respondent filed an appeal with the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT which
rendered the decision affirming the order of MNR and that all the mining claims in violation of
Section 28(c) of CA No.137 are declared null and void.
 Private Respondent was given the preferential right to possess, exploit ,explore, develop and operate
the areas.
- Petitioner filed a MR but was DENIED
- Hence , this Petition.

ISSUE: W/N the findings of the government agencies are controlling on the court.

HELD: NEGATIVE

ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE: Where there is no fraud , collusion, arbitrariness, illegality ,

imposition and mistake on the part of the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT or a department head in rendering
their questioned decision or of a total lack of substantial evidence to support the same, such administrative
decision are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with by the courts.

As a general rule, the findings of the government agencies with respect to the construction of statutes
the implementation of which has been reposed to them, are controlling on the court.