ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

GR. NO. L-49711 November 7, 1979

2nd Division Aquino

FACTS:

Zambales Chromite Mining Corp., Inc. (ZCM, Inc.) sought to be declared the rightful and prior locators and possessors of 69 mining claims in Zambales. ZCM filed their claims with then Director of Mines Benjamin Gozon. ZCM, Inc., were asserting their claim against the mining claims of Martinez and Pabilona. Director Gozon decided in favor of Martinez and Pabilona and dismissed the claims of ZCM, Inc., ruling that ZCM, Inc. did not discover any mineral nor located any mining claims in accordance with law. ZCM appealed the decision before the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. During the pendency of the appeal, Director gozon was appointed Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. Gozon in his capacity as Secretary affirmed his decision as Director of Mines and dismissed the appeal of ZCM, Inc.

ZCM then appealed before the CFI of Zambales. The CFI affirmed the decision of Gozon.

RULING OF CFI:

The disqualification of a judge to review his own decision or ruling (Sec. 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court) does not apply to administrative bodies; that there is no provision in the Mining Law, disqualifying the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from deciding an appeal from a case which he had decided as Director of Mines; that delicadeza is not a ground for disqualification. ZCM appealed the case to the CA.

RULING OF CA:

CA after realizing that Gozon cannot affirm his own decision remanded the case to the Minister of Natural Resources.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Gozon can review and validly affirm his earlier decision w/o disturbing due process?

HELD:

Secretary Gozon cannot review his decision as Director of Mines. A Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reviewing his own decision as Director of Mines is a mockery of administrative justice.

RATIO:

In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case.