ILOILO CITY-The Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of lower courts ordering the Semirara Mining Corp., to relinquish control over a disputed 367-hectare property on Semirara Island in Antique.

In its decision promulgated on Dec. 6, 2006, the SC's Third Division affirmed the January 31, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals that upheld the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the SMC.

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing and concurred in by Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Dante Tinga and Presbitero Velasco Jr.

In denying the petition for review filed by the SMC questioning the CA ruling, the SC ordered the lifting of the temporary restraining order it issued in Feb. 23, 2005 against the implementation of the CA ruling.

The ruling of the appellate court upheld the order of the Antique Regional Trial Court granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The RTC decision forbid the SMC from encroaching on the subject land or conducting any activities in it and ordered the mining company to turnover control of the property to HGL Development Corp.

HGL Development Corp. is claiming possession of the property situated in Sitios Bobog and Pontod in Barangay Semirara by virtue of a Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement (FLGLA) by the then Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. The FLGLA was issued on Sept. 28, 1984 for a term of 25 years, to end on Dec. 31, 2009, according to court records.

The SMC (formerly the Semirara Coal Corp.), a subsidiary of the D.M. Consunji Inc. (DMCI), operates the biggest coal mine in Asia on the 5,500-hectare island. In 1999, it requested permission from HGL to allow its trucks and other equipment to pass through the property covered by the FLGLA on condition that SMC would not violate the land lease agreement.

But SMC subsequently erected several buildings used as the company's administrative offices and employees' residences without HGL's permission, according to the SC order.

SMC also conducted blasting and excavation operations and constructed an access road leading to its minesite in the Panaan Coal Reserve. It also maintained a stockyard for the coal it extracted from its mines.

HGL filed on Nov. 17, 2003 a complaint against the SMC for recovery of possession and damages and asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction before the Antique RTC after the SMC ignored demands to stop its activities that violated the agreement with HGL.

In its petition for review questioning the CA and RTC rulings, the SMC said the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the RTC decision. It also said that it was deprived of due process and denied of its right to present evidence when the RTC issued the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The SMC argued that the HGL has no legal right after the DENR issued an order on Dec. 6, 2000 canceling the FLGLA and ordering the HGL to vacate the land covered by the lease agreement. HGL is contesting the DENR order.

But in its order, the SC pointed out that the cancellation of the FLGLA by the DENR "does not automatically render the FLGLA invalid since the unilateral cancellation is subject of a separate case…"

The SC affirmed the CA findings that the SMC violated the rights of HGL as the lessee of the disputed property. It said SMC's unauthorized activities "effectively deprived HGL of its right to use the subject property for cattle-grazing pursuant to the FLGLA."

In its ruling, the High Court said "It cannot be denied that the continuance of petitioner's possession during the pendency of the case for recovery of possession will not only be unfair but will undeniably work injustice to HGL. It would also cause continuing damage and material injury to HGL. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in favor of HGL."*NPB

back to top