GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC., PETITIONER and APPELLANT, VS. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND DIRECTOR OF MINES, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES, ANIFELINA S. GALANG, B…

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Marinduque
dated February 21, 1963 dismissing appellant’s petition to set aside
the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources of
June 7, 1961, upon the ground that appellant had failed to file an
appeal bond and on the further ground of lack of jurisdiction.

It appears that appellant Gold Star Mining Co., Inc., a duly
organized domestic corporation engaged in the exploration, exploitation
and utilization of natural resources, filed with the Bureau of Mines
Lode Lease Application No. R-56 covering mining claims denominated as
“Isao Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20 and 21” all located at Sitio Isao, Barrio Batangsapa,
Municipality of Mogpog, Province of Marinduque. On September 9, 1960
the Director of the Bureau of Mines denied said application because of
appellant’s failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Mining
Act, as amended, and pertinent mining rules and regulations. Its motion
for reconsideration having been denied on December 19, 1960 by the
Director of Mines, appellant took the case to the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Before the appeal could be disposed of, Anifelina S. Galang, Belen
S. Galang, Arsenio Galang, Jr., and Ruperto S. Galang, upon their
motion, were allowed to intervene on account of their interest over
seven of the twenty-one mining claims in question.

On June 7, 1961 the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
dismissed the appeal on the ground that appellant had failed: (a) to
comply with the requirements of the Mining Law; (b) to make deposits to
defray survey expenses; and (c) to pay occupation fees despite several
letters of demand. Notice of this decision was received by appellant on
July 20, 1961. A motion for reconsideration filed by it was also denied
on September 17, 1961. Hence, on October 12, 1961 appellant filed with
the Court of First Instance of Marinduque the petition later dismissed
by the latter.

In its verified petition filed with the lower court under date of
October 13, 1961, appellant alleged that the respondents-appellees
acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying its application No.
R-56, thus causing it irreparable damages, and asked the Court to
reverse their order.

In due time respondents-appellees filed their joint answer denying
having abused their discretion in denying petitioner’s application and,
as special defenses, alleged that the petition was fatally defective in
that it did not allege jurisdictional matters; that said petition did
not state a sufficient cause of action, and that their findings of fact
being final and conclusive were not reviewable by the courts.

The motion for leave to intervene filed by Anifelina S. Galang,
Belen S. Galang, Arsenio Galang, Jr., and Ruperto S. Galang was granted
on February 6, 1963. Thereafter, respondents-appellees and intervenors
jointly moved to dismiss the case on the ground that petitioner failed
to file its appeal bond within the reglementary period and that the
allegation in its petition that “respondents acted with grave abuse of
discretion in rejecting petitioner’s application” made the case one for
certiorari as a special civil action and, consequently, beyond the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Marinduque considering
that respondents had their offices in Manila and Quezon City,
respectively.

Opposing the joint notion to dismiss appellant claims that neither
the Mining Act nor the Rules of Court require the filing of appeal bond
in cases of appeal from the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources and further contends that if Rule 40 of the Rules
of Court which requires an appeal bond is applicable to its case, then
it had complied with the requirement by reason of its deposit of P32.00
as filing fee.

On February 21, 1963 the lower court dismissed appellant’ s petition
on the ground that no appeal bond was filed, and held further that even
assuming that the case was for certiorari as a special civil action, it
could not take cognizance thereof because respondents were beyond its
territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the instant appeal.

Upon the facts stated heretofore, it seems clear that what appellant
commenced in the lower court – notwithstanding allegations made in its
petition concerning “grave abuse of discretion” – is not a civil action
for certiorari but an appeal from the order of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Pursuant to the provisions of
Section 4, Republic Act No. 739, a party who desires to appeal from the
decision of said official may take the matter to a court of competent
jurisdiction – generally recognized to be a Court of First Instance
(Secretary of Agriculture etc. vs. Court of First Instance of Manila et
al., G. R. No. L-7752, May 27, 1955). It is clear, therefore, that the
action instituted by appellant in the lower court is not an original
action but one in the nature of an appeal. Whether such appeal should
be governed by the provisions of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court
or by those of Rule 40 of the same body of rules, the appellant is
required to file an appeal bond, which herein appellant admits it did
not file. Such being the case, the lower court was justified in
dismissing the appeal upon that ground.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., on leave.