Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 122 views

    Narra Nickel Mining Vs Redmont Consolidated

    Uploaded by

    Real Tabernero
    1) Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. expressed interest in mining areas of Palawan province that were already covered by Mineral Production Sharing Agreement applications filed by Narra Nickel Mining, Tesoro Mining, and McArthur Mining (petitioners). 2) The Court of Appeals used the "grandfather rule" to determine the nationality of the petitioners. It discovered that MBMI, a 100% Canadian corporation, had majority ownership of the petitioners through a "web of corporate layering". 3) The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioners' argument that the grandfather rule no longer applies. It found that the petitioners were not Filipino since a Canadian corporation owned 60%

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Narra Nickel Mining Vs Redmont Consolidated

    Uploaded by

    Real Tabernero
    122 views3 pages
    1) Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. expressed interest in mining areas of Palawan province that were already covered by Mineral Production Sharing Agreement applications filed by Narra Nickel Mining, Tesoro Mining, and McArthur Mining (petitioners). 2) The Court of Appeals used the "grandfather rule" to determine the nationality of the petitioners. It discovered that MBMI, a 100% Canadian corporation, had majority ownership of the petitioners through a "web of corporate layering". 3) The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioners' argument that the grandfather rule no longer applies. It found that the petitioners were not Filipino since a Canadian corporation owned 60%

    Original Description:

    statcon

    Original Title

    232452002 Narra Nickel Mining vs Redmont Consolidated

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. expressed interest in mining areas of Palawan province that were already covered by Mineral Production Sharing Agreement applications filed by Narra Nickel Mining, Tesoro Mining, and McArthur Mining (petitioners). 2) The Court of Appeals used the "grandfather rule" to determine the nationality of the petitioners. It discovered that MBMI, a 100% Canadian corporation, had majority ownership of the petitioners through a "web of corporate layering". 3) The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioners' argument that the grandfather rule no longer applies. It found that the petitioners were not Filipino since a Canadian corporation owned 60%

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    122 views3 pages

    Narra Nickel Mining Vs Redmont Consolidated

    Uploaded by

    Real Tabernero
    1) Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. expressed interest in mining areas of Palawan province that were already covered by Mineral Production Sharing Agreement applications filed by Narra Nickel Mining, Tesoro Mining, and McArthur Mining (petitioners). 2) The Court of Appeals used the "grandfather rule" to determine the nationality of the petitioners. It discovered that MBMI, a 100% Canadian corporation, had majority ownership of the petitioners through a "web of corporate layering". 3) The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioners' argument that the grandfather rule no longer applies. It found that the petitioners were not Filipino since a Canadian corporation owned 60%

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    G.R. No.

    195580

    April 21, 2014

    NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., TESORO MINING AND


    DEVELOPMENT, INC., and MCARTHUR MINING, INC., Petitioners, vs.REDMONT
    CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP., Respondent.
    FACTS:

    Sometime in December 2006, respondent Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp.


    (Redmont), a domestic corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws, took
    interest in mining and exploring certain areas of the province of Palawan. After
    inquiring with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), it
    learned that the areas where it wanted to undertake exploration and mining activities
    where already covered by Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications
    of petitioners Narra, Tesoro and McArthur.
    Petitioner McArthur Narra and Tesoro, filed an application for an MPSA and
    Exploration Permit (EP) which was subsequently issued.
    On January 2, 2007, Redmont filed before the Panel of Arbitrators (POA) of the
    DENR three (3) separate petitions for the denial of petitioners applications for MPSA.
    Redmont alleged that at least 60% of the capital stock of McArthur, Tesoro and
    Narra are owned and controlled by MBMI Resources, Inc. (MBMI), a 100% Canadian
    corporation. Redmont reasoned that since MBMI is a considerable stockholder of
    petitioners, it was the driving force behind petitioners filing of the MPSAs over the
    areas covered by applications since it knows that it can only participate in mining
    activities through corporations which are deemed Filipino citizens. Redmont argued
    that given that petitioners capital stocks were mostly owned by MBMI, they were
    likewise disqualified from engaging in mining activities through MPSAs, which are
    reserved only for Filipino citizens.
    Petitioners averred that they were qualified persons under Section 3(aq) of
    Republic Act No. (RA) 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. They stated that
    their nationality as applicants is immaterial because they also applied for Financial or
    Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAA) denominated as AFTA-IVB-09 for McArthur,
    AFTA-IVB-08 for Tesoro and AFTA-IVB-07 for Narra, which are granted to foreignowned corporations. Nevertheless, they claimed that the issue on nationality should
    not be raised since McArthur, Tesoro and Narra are in fact Philippine Nationals as 60%
    of their capital is owned by citizens of the Philippines.
    On December 14, 2007, the POA issued a Resolution disqualifying petitioners
    from gaining MPSAs. The POA considered petitioners as foreign corporations being
    "effectively controlled" by MBMI, a 100% Canadian company and declared their
    MPSAs null and void.
    Pending the resolution of the appeal filed by petitioners with the MAB,
    Redmont filed a Complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
    seeking the revocation of the certificates for registration of petitioners on the ground
    that they are foreign-owned or controlled corporations engaged in mining in violation
    of Philippine laws.
    CA found that there was doubt as to the nationality of petitioners when it
    realized that petitioners had a common major investor, MBMI, a corporation
    composed of 100% Canadians. Pursuant to the first sentence of paragraph 7 of
    Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 020, Series of 2005, adopting the 1967 SEC

    Rules which implemented the requirement of the Constitution and other laws
    pertaining to the exploitation of natural resources, the CA used the "grandfather rule"
    to determine the nationality of petitioners.
    In determining the nationality of petitioners, the CA looked into their corporate
    structures and their corresponding common shareholders. Using the grandfather
    rule, the CA discovered that MBMI in effect owned majority of the common
    stocks of the petitioners as well as at least 60% equity interest of other
    majority shareholders of petitioners through joint venture agreements. The
    CA found that through a "web of corporate layering, it is clear that one
    common controlling investor in all mining corporations involved x x x is
    MBMI." Thus, it concluded that petitioners McArthur, Tesoro and Narra are
    also in partnership with, or privies-in-interest of, MBMI.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Court of Appeals ruling that Narra, Tesoro and McArthur
    are foreign corporations based on the "Grandfather Rule" is contrary to law,
    particularly the express mandate of the Foreign Investments Act of 1991, as
    amended, and the FIA Rules.
    HELD:

    No. There are two acknowledged tests in determining the nationality of a


    corporation: the control test and the grandfather rule. Paragraph 7 of DOJ
    Opinion No. 020, Series of 2005, adopting the 1967 SEC Rules which implemented
    the requirement of the Constitution and other laws pertaining to the controlling
    interests in enterprises engaged in the exploitation of natural resources owned by
    Filipino citizens, provides:
    Shares belonging to corporations or partnerships at least 60% of the
    capital of which is owned by Filipino citizens shall be considered as of
    Philippine nationality (CONTROL TEST), but if the percentage of Filipino
    ownership in the corporation or partnership is less than 60%, only the number
    of shares corresponding to such percentage shall be counted as of Philippine
    nationality (GRANDFATHER RULE). Thus, if 100,000 shares are registered in
    the name of a corporation or partnership at least 60% of the capital stock or
    capital, respectively, of which belong to Filipino citizens, all of the shares shall
    be recorded as owned by Filipinos. But if less than 60%, or say, 50% of the
    capital stock or capital of the corporation or partnership, respectively, belongs
    to Filipino citizens, only 50,000 shares shall be counted as owned by Filipinos
    and the other 50,000 shall be recorded as belonging to aliens.
    The grandfather rule, petitioners reasoned, has no leg to stand on in the
    instant case since the definition of a "Philippine National" under Sec. 3 of the FIA
    does not provide for it. They further claim that the grandfather rule "has been
    abandoned and is no longer the applicable rule." They also opined that the last
    portion of Sec. 3 of the FIA admits the application of a "corporate layering" scheme of
    corporations. Petitioners claim that the clear and unambiguous wordings of the
    statute preclude the court from construing it and prevent the courts use of discretion
    in applying the law. They said that the plain, literal meaning of the statute meant the
    application of the control test is obligatory.
    SC disagreed. "Corporate layering" is admittedly allowed by the FIA; but if it is
    used to circumvent the Constitution and pertinent laws, then it becomes illegal.
    Further, the pronouncement of petitioners that the grandfather rule has already been
    abandoned must be discredited for lack of basis.

    Petitioners McArthur, Tesoro and Narra are not Filipino since MBMI, a 100%
    Canadian corporation, owns 60% or more of their equity interests. Such conclusion is
    derived from grandfathering petitioners corporate owners, namely: MMI, SMMI and
    PLMDC. The "control test" is still the prevailing mode of determining whether or not a
    corporation is a Filipino corporation, within the ambit of Sec. 2, Art. II of the 1987
    Constitution, entitled to undertake the exploration, development and utilization of the
    natural resources of the Philippines. When in the mind of the Court there is doubt,
    based on the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, in the 60-40 Filipinoequity ownership in the corporation, then it may apply the "grandfather rule."

    You might also like