In re: Complaint of CSAG Applicant-IMELDA ESCIO

against Permittee NESTOR AMPARO

x------------------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

COMPLAINANT IMELDA ESCIO, through the undersigned assisting

counsel, unto PENRO-LGU and PMRB, most respectfully submits this
position paper, and in support hereof, hereby states that:

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

1. I am a CSAG permit applicant over an area located at Simulao River,

Brgy. San Ignacio, Trento, Agusan del Sur.

2. As proof of my pending application, Barangay San Ignacio issued a

Barangay Certification1 dated September 13, 2019, certifying that I
complied with the requirement of posting the notice of CSAG
application.

3. The same barangay on the same date issued a Resolution 2 interposing

no objection and further recommending the approval of my CSAG
application permit at Simulao River, San nIgnacio, Trento, Agusan del
Sur

4. In addition to the said barangay resolution, it also issued a certificate 3

of No objection and recommending approval of the CSAG application.

5. In support, The Municipality of Trento also issued a certificate 4 of no

objection and recommend approval to my application, dated September
16, 2019.

6. The Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) Region

5
furnished/transmitted to PENRO-LGU/PMRB-Secretariat of Agusan
del Sur, the copy of area clearance 6 and Location map7 for my applied
area.

1
Certificate of Posting issued by Barangay San Ignacio
2
Barangay Resolution No. 022 series of 2019 , stating no Objection and Recommend Approval to Application
3
Barangay Certification of No Objection and Recommend Approval to Application
4
Certificate of No Objection and recommending approval by the Municipality of Trento, Agusan del Sur
5
Transmittal letter from MGB Region 13, dated November 13, 2019
6
Area clearance
7
Location map of applied area
 7. The location map reflects the sketch area I applied for, located in-
between the quarry areas of permittee Omar M. Amparo (south-side)
and Nestle Amparo (north-side).

8. The CSAG area of herein respondent Nestor Amparo is adjacent and

located at the northern portion of Nestle Amparo.

9. Provincial Mining Regulatory Board in Agusan del Sur issued a

certification8 dated December 11, 2019, certifying that I applied a
CSAG permit, the area I applied for is free from conflict and does not
overlap with any other CSAG permit areas issued by the Provincial
Government.
10. On January 4, 2020, while visiting the quarry area I applied for
CSAG permit, I notice several heavy equipment extracting sand and
gravel in my area. I was then pretty sure that they extracted in my
applied area, because I am familiar with the boundaries next to
Amparo’s CSAG areas.

11. I immediately informed my husband Vicente Escio to inform the

heavy-equipment operator that they encroached to my applied area.

12. Upon inquiry, we found out that the equipment belongs to Nestor
Amparo, a CSAG Permitee with an area next to Nestle Amparo.

13. That on January 13, 2020, I went to the office of National

Commission on Indigenous People to complain about the
encroachment made by Nestor Amparo. However, the NCIP Provincial
Office referred me to PMRB, which I immediately complied.

14. However, Nestor Amparo also made a complaint before the

Office of the Barangay in San Ignacio. He fabricated malicious stories
that my husband went to the area, with the use of bolo, threatened and
chase the operator of heavy equipment.

15. During the mediation, there was a failure to settle the dispute and
we decided to elevate the matter to Provincial level.

16. On January 15, the PENRO-LGU made an ocular inspection and

found out that indeed, Mr. Nestor Amparo, encroached in my area.

8
Certification from Provincial Mining Regulatory Board
 17. The equipment-operator were instructed by PENRO-LGU to stop
the extraction beyond the boundaries of Amparo. They stop operation
on that day but resumed extraction in the same area the next day

18. My husband Vicente Escio took pictures 9 of the location and the
extraction activities after the instruction of PENRO LGU to stop.

19. The act of resuming extraction despite findings of encroachment

and order to stop, is a contempt to regulating agency/authorities, and
this should be penalize in accordance with the terms and conditions
provided for in the CSAG permit.

20. In an investigation facilitated by PENRO LGU, it appears that the

dispute between the parties remains unsolved, and the panel of
arbitrators decided to require the parties to submit their position papers
to fast track the resolution and simplified the issues.
21.

ISSUES

I. Respondent encroached on complainant’ CSAG applied area

II. Respondent Violated the terms and conditions of CSAG

Permit

III. Respondent violated the Mining Law

IV. Complainant suffered damages

DISCUSSION

Respondent Nestor Amparo Encroached on Complaianants applied CSAG

Area

22. Complainant being members of Manobo Indigenous people in

barangay San Ignacio Trento Agusan del Sur, has been living in the area
through their ascendants, she knows very well her boundaries. What is sure
on the part of the complainant is that she had been able to identify her
applied area.

9
Pictures of equipment of Nestor Amparo, extracting sand and gravel in my area despite the advise from PENRO LGU
to stop.
23. With the defined boundaries in place, one can determine whether he
already encroached to areas of another person. However, with intent to
unjustly enrich himself though the expense of another, respondent turn a
blind eye to the rights of another.

24. On the issue of extraction by Gabriel Lastimosa, the same can be

attested to by the complainant with the attached pictures of equipment used
by the Gabriel Lastimosa.
25. Sdssdsdas
26. S
27. S
28. Sa
29. Sa
30. Dd
31. Ds

Violation of terms and condition of CSAG Permit

32. Respondent violated several provisions in the CSAG terms and

conditions. One of which if the use of permit of another holder, when the use
of the same is exclusive to the person it was issued.

2. The Permit shall be for the exclusive use and

benefit of the Permit Holder and not, directly or indirectly, for
the benefit of any other person whether natural or juridical, and
that the area covered by this Permit shall be used for the
purpose only of extracting and disposing the materials herein
authorized;

33. It appears from the surrounding facts that Nestor Amparo is extracting
in the area of Nestle Amparo and the surrounding area. Nestle and Nestor
are two different persons with two different CSAG permits. One should not
use each others permits even if they are relatives, as this would violate the
exclusivity of CSAG permit.

34. Thinking th It should be ne

35.
36.
37.
38.
 8. The extraction and removal of quarry resources
under this Permit shall be confined within the area specified
herein, the boundaries of which according to the application
have been well established according to survey rules and
regulations. This Permit shall exclude areas closed to mining
location as provided in Sec. 19 of the Act;
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44. It worth to reiterate that Gabriel Lastimosa is a new CSAG applicant
who agreed in a barangay settlement that there will be no extraction in the
disputed area pending resolution of their conflict.
45.
46. Ds
47. Ds
48. Ds
49. dd

50. asa
51.
52. As
53. Asa
54. Sa
55. Sa
56. Sa
57. Sas
58. As
59. As
60. As
61. S
62. As

Violation of Mining Law

63. Sand and Gravel extraction or quarry is covered by Republic Act 7942
or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995..
64. Nestor Amparo’s act of extrtacting sand and gravel outside his permit
area, constitute theft of minerals which is punishable under Section 103 of
RA 7942.
Section 103. Theft of Minerals. - Any person extracting
minerals and disposing the same without a mining
agreement, lease, permit, license, or steals minerals or
ores or the products thereof from mines or mills or
processing plants shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned
from six (6) months to six (6) years or pay a fine from Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the appropriate
court. In addition, he shall be liable to pay damages and
compensation for the minerals removed, extracted, and
disposed of. In the case of associations, partnerships, or
corporations, the president and each of the directors
thereof shall be responsible for the acts committed by
such association, corporation, or partnership.

65. Ds
66. Dsd
67.

Damages suffered by complainant

68.
11. This Permit may be revoked or canceled at any
time by the Provincial Governor/City Mayor
concerned when in his/her opinion public interest so
requires, or upon failure of the Permit Holder to
comply with the provisions of the Philippine Mining
Act of 1995 and the Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as with
the terms and conditions specified herein;
69.
70.
71.
72.
 73.
74.
75. Considering that the respondnent made huge extraction from the
area of complainant, it is only right and just to reimburse the latter for
the lost earnings. Had it not for the illegal acts of respondent and his
adamant refusal to stop quarrying, complainant would have earned it.

12.The Permit Holder shall assume full responsibility

and be liable for damages to private and/or public
property(ies) that may be occasioned by its operations
under the Permit;

76. Clearly, with his illegal extraction at complianant’s are,

respondent unjustly enriched himself at the expense of complainant.
77. The law provides that when there is unjust enrichment at the
expense of another, he must return or reimburse what due to the
aggrieved party.

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by

another, or any other means, acquires or comes into a possession
of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Panel, that decision be rendered to wit:

19. Stop respondent from any extraction of sand and gravel in the area of
complainant

20. Order the respondnet to pay damages and deliver the sales proceeds
from the sand and gravel extracted from complainant’s area.

21. Cancel the CSAG permit of respondent for violating the terms and
condition of CSAG permit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.
 ATTY. MARCELIANO MONATO III
Assisting Counsel for
Complainant