Philex cites concern on TRO vs mine company

By Thet R. Mesias

TUBA, Benguet -- Philex Mining Corp. (PMC), the country’s largest producer of gold and copper, expressed concern over the delay of the panel of arbitrators (POA) to act on its motion for reconsideration regarding the latter's decision on a case versus Butan Mining Exploration Company. 

The MR, filed on December 7 last year, was issued in response to POA’s decision which PMC claimed as “without jurisdiction contrary to existing law.  

According to Philex Mining vice president for legal Ike Rodriquez, the operating agreement between Butan and Philex is not a “mineral agreement’ that is referred to in the Mining Act.  Rather, the issue is about the alleged violations of an operating contract and claim for rentals for the use of the 745 ML tunnel owned by the company that traverses six of Butan’s mining claims,” 

In a 34-page motion for reconsideration that Philex Mining filed following the release of POA’s decision in favor of Butan, the former said the power of the POA to resolve any adverse claim, opposition, or protest relative to mining rights under Section 77 (a) of RA 7942 is confined only to adverse claims, conflicts, and oppositions relating to applications for the grant of mineral rights.

Rodriguez, a lawyer, disclosed that Butan has already waived its right to collect rentals for the use of the 745 ML tunnel when it failed to assert its right to compensation during the negotiations for the contract and its subsequent amendment. “Complainant’s failure to assert its alleged rights from the time the Operating Contract was executed and its subsequent amendment despite full knowledge of the existence of the 745tunnel,” he said.

Philex Mining believes Butan Mining knew for a fact that it really has no right to the tunnel because they do not own it nor it is part of their claim. “The tunnel predates the execution of the contract for almost two decades,” Atty. Rodriguez added.

Butan Mining’s claim for compensation, as Philex cited in the MR, is barred by prescription. It should have claimed for rentals within ten years for the execution of the Operating Contract.

The case is also full of the elements of ‘estoppel’  – the doctrine of which is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice. PMC claimed Butan’s present conduct of asking for rental fees for the alleged use of the 745 tunnel is inconsistent with its conduct during the negotiation and execution of the Operating Contract and its amendments.

Philex further revealed that Butan’s representative LinoDomilos has no existing rights in its company.  VictorianoDomilos, his predecessor-in-rights assigned all of his rights inButan to Philex. Thus, the voluntary conveyance of these shares automatically dissolves the partnership. Domilos and his siblings do not have any basis in representing Butan, it said.

Another group led by Atty. Rondez is claiming two-thirds of the entire Butan claims, Atty. Rodriguez said. “This,” he added, “further clouds the interest of the Domilos siblings.”

Philex Mining also cited the failure of Butan Mining to pay the prescribed docket fees, which under the Rules on Pleading, Practice, and Procedure before the POA and the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) which is required before filing of complaints.

“Complainant cannot qualify as a pauper litigant which can be exempted from paying the required docket fees,” PMC’s MR stated, adding that Butan Mining is clearly a ‘juridicial partnership’ and not a ‘natural person’ nor an ‘indigent’ for it has earned millions over the years from PMC’s payments alone. Thus, there is no legal merit in its claims, the company added.