Judge: LEVIS ZERPA IGNACIO

Exp No. 2002-0923

By letter submitted to the Board dated October 18, 2002, counsel Barroeta Arnoldo Rafael Muñoz, registered in the INPREABOGADO as number 15400, acting with the legal guardian of the corporation MINERA Las Cristinas, CA, registered in the Mercantile Registry of the Judicial District of Bolivar State with headquarters in Puerto Ordaz, dated January 24, 1992, as No. 17, Volume A, No. 132, brought in accordance with the provisions of Section 182 of the Act then the Supreme Court, enforcement of contract claim against the Venezuelan Guayana Corporation, an autonomous institute established by Decree No. 430 dated December 29, 1960, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela No. 26,445 dated 30 of that year, this reformed by Decree No. 1531 dated November 7, 2001, published in the Official Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela No. 5553 dated November 12, 2001.

In the letter noted that such legal representation MINC is a joint enterprise whose capital is owned by two shareholders: Vannessa de Venezuela, CA, (formerly Placer Dome Venezuela, CA), and CVG Also, that on March 4, 1992, Mincer and CVG signed a contract to develop the activities of mineral exploration and exploitation of alluvial gold and grain, in an area known as Las Cristinas 4, 5, 6 and 7, located at Km 88, Jurisdiction of the Autonomous Municipality of Sifontes Bolivar State, and employment contract that established a period of 20 years, renewable for periods of 10 years.

On the other hand, stated:

"However, CVG in total violation of Article 243 of the Code of Commerce began a campaign to discredit through various media, seeking to justify the termination of the 'Mining Contract' which have signed with Mincer, (...)

(...)

While the campaign of denigration against MINC deployed by CVG in its zenith, on November 6, 2001, we represented was notified through the Notice No pre-678-01, issued by the President of the Corporación Venezolana de Guayana , which warns that its decision to unilaterally terminate the employment contract, under which MINC has been forced to perform various actions by the Supreme Court of Justice.

(...)

1.5 Finally, and after the campaign to discredit above deployed by CVG, it signed with Crystallex International Corporation, dated September 17, 2002, before the Notary Public of Puerto Ordaz, Bolivar State, under the N ° 16 , Volume 86, through a contract giving him the right to exploit and extract gold ore in the area of Las Cristinas 4, 5, 6 and 7 (...)

1.6 However, coupled with the arbitrariness of CVG having unilaterally terminated the contract of employment, she surrendered to Crystallex International Corporation, all assets owned by Mincer, it had invested in the mining project in that area of the Christian not exist any act expropriation, whose estimated value is the amount of one hundred and seventy-two million dollars from the United States of America (U.S. $ 172,000,000). "

On October 22, 2002, found in room and car with the same date, it was agreed to move the case to Court of Conduct for the purposes of admission.

By order dated November 13, 2002, the court admitted the application filed Conduct and, therefore, ordered notice to the Corporation Venezolana de Guayana in the person of its president Francisco Rangel Gomez citizen, to give the same answer. It also agreed to carry notification of the Attorney General of the Republic.

On January 14, 2003, the Bailiff of the court of Conduct outlined. "Recorded in a useful foil, the receipt of a notification addressed to the Attorney General's office, signed and dated 16.12.02 delivered dated 8-1-03."

Subsequently, at 29 the same year, the said Sheriff noted the impossibility of the citation practice of the defendant.

Legal representation of the complainant, dated February 6, 2003, requested the summons shall be effected by posters of the defendant, given the inability expressed by the Court Bailiff Conduct.

By a measure of February 25, 2003, counsel Hari Marianna Almeida, entered in the INPREABOGADO under No. 52336, acting with the legal representative of the company Minera Las Cristinas, CA, assisted by counsel Barroeta Arnoldo Rafael Muñoz inscribed in INPREABOGADO under No. 15400, stated: "Based on Article 263 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of my MINC, cease the application procedure launched against CVG Corporación Venezolana de Guayana), the which was granted by order dated November 13, 2002, reserving its action. " (Sic).

Then, of diligence filed on February 26, 2003, counsel Simon Araque, registered in the INPREABOGADO under No. 5303, acting in his capacity as legal guardian of the Corporación Venezolana de Guayana, made opposition to the proposed withdrawal by the defendant , arguing that:

"... I object to the withdrawal of MINC, for two reasons: a) The legal representation of MINC only has the power to cancel, but not the power or holds' ability to dispose of the object to be seen on the controversy 'requirement of Article 264 Procedures Code, which has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court ruling on 21-2-2001, which proclaimed that the ability to have omitted the subject in question is stated in the mandate (Pierre tapia vol.2 2001 P . 633), reason enough for this court can not approve the agreement: b) the nature of demand has tips immeasurable damage to the CVG, which is not compensable if possible MINC is outside the trance with a simple withdrawal, without further ado .... " (Sic).

Then, at a date March 5, 2003, counsel Hari Marianna Almeida, identified above, acting with the legal representative of the company Minera Las Cristinas, CA, assisted by counsel, Arnoldo Rafael Muñoz Barroeta also identified before appropriated letter confirming your request for withdrawal and undermining the arguments presented by the representative of the respondent court. In that letter counsel stated:

"... I note that the sentence for the above mentioned legal professional diligence in the February 26, 2003, issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, has nothing to do with the case sub judice, because the factual circumstances in which that decision was based, were referred to a case where the instrument of judicial power of attorney of the complainant under brought, suffered from the powers expressly provided for in Article 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to dispose of the litigation, which have nothing to do with this case, because my powers derive from the statutory body MINC. Therefore I request is rejected the arguments of diligenciante.

7 Similarly rejecting the application of the representation of the CVG, which is not approved for this waiver on the grounds that it would have caused some damage alleged, and that there was no litis the lock, (...) the defendant had not yet been cited by what happened or did not reply nor any other act, therefore, wrong to claim that could have caused any harm. " (Sic). Highlighting the Chamber)

The legal guardian of the Corporación Venezolana de Guayana, dated March 6, 2003, said a nolle prosequi because of record in the file, ie January 14, 2003, notification of the Attorney General's Office

Through No. 002592 dated March 12, 2003, received in this courtroom on 18 of the same year, the Attorney General of the Republic ratified the suspension of this case during the period of ninety (90) consecutive days.

Later, at a date March 27, 2003, the legal representation of a company Minera Las Cristinas, CA appropriated written and considerations, then, diligently at the same time, accompanied by a certified copy of the Bylaws Minca, a copy of which already had been incorporated into the record.

On April 22, 2003, legal representation for the defendant submitted written views and answer to the complaint. Then 23 of the same year, appropriated another response to demand.

On the same date, ie April 23, 2003, empowered the court to the plaintiff ratified his request for waiver.

By order of April 23, 2003, the court of Conduct agreed to move the case to the Board, to grant approval for the withdrawal made in this cause.

On May 6, 2003, found in room and car of the same date, was appointed rapporteur Judge Hadel Mostafa Paolini, for deciding on the discontinuance raised in this case.

Diligence filed by date May 21, 2003, Judge Hadel Mostafa Paolini was inhibited to know the present case, being involved in the grounds contained in Article 82 of the 15 Ordinal of the Code of Civil Procedure.

At the same time, the legal guardian of the Corporación Venezolana de Guayana appropriated letter requesting reinstatement of the case.

On May 26, 2003 was declared from the inhibition by Judge Hadel Mostafa Paoloni, and convened to form the Political-Administrative Accidental, attorney Humberto Briceño León, as the first alternate, who apologized on 7 July, accepting the above call.

On July 15, 2003, was agreed to convene the Second Deputy of the Political-Administrative Chamber, "For day-17.12.02, Dr. Alfredo Hernandez Morles, Associate Judge of the First Chamber, formally renounced his post .

This day was called the lawyer Ricardo Henriquez La Roche, as the second alternate, who apologized on August 5, 2003.

On August 25, 2003, was convened to form the Political-Administrative Accidental, counsel Alejandro Caribbean, in his capacity as Second Associate.

By a measure of the November 18, 2003, the legal guardian of the respondent, requested a decision be rendered in this cause.

On December 10, 2003, counsel Alejandro Caribbean, in his capacity as Second Associate, excused himself from accepting the above call.

Then, through proceedings dated 11 December 2003 and February 26, 2004, the legal representation of the plaintiff ratified the request for withdrawal made in this cause.

Later, at a date June 8, 2004, was called Lourdes Wills lawyer, as the third alternate.

On March 29, 2005, the legal guardian of the Corporación Venezolana de Guayana, is requested to provide the Political-Administrative Accidental.

By proceedings dated July 21, 2005 and March 28, 2006, the legal representation of the plaintiff requested the waiver is approved made in this case.

By order of August 8, 2006, noted that the January 17, 2005, joined the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, Judges and Evelyn Marrero Ortíz Emiro Rosas Garcia, appointed by the National Assembly dated December 13, 2004, and also that on 02 February 2005, was elected the Board of the Supreme Court, leaving the Political-Administrative follows: President, Judge Evelyn Marrero Ortíz; Vice President, Judge Yolanda Jaimes Guerrero; Judge Levis Ignacio Zerpa, Hadel Mostafa Paolini and Emiro Garcia Rosas, ordered the continuation of the case.

On this same date, the Board, "By that date 17.01.05 became the new Political Management, and the inhibition seen by Judge Hadel Mostafa Paolini dated October 24, 2002, and was declared from and having been nominated by the Plenary Chamber, two of the associate (...) as set out in Article 9 Paragraph 2 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice agreed to convene the alternate or Associate.

By motion No. 4236 of the same date he was summoned counsel Luzardo Rodolfo Antonio Baptista, as the first alternate.

The Bailiff of the Board dated October 17, 2006, recorded notified of that call Luzardo andalusia lawyer Rodolfo Antonio Baptista, who, on June 16 of that year, accepted the call that was made.

By order of December 7, 2006, was the Political-Administrative Accidental, was as follows: President: Judge Evelyn Marrero Ortíz, Vice-President: Judge Yolanda Jaimes Guerrero; Judges and Emiro Levis Ignacio Zerpa Garcia Rosas, Judge Alternate: Rodolfo Antonio Baptista Luzardo; Secretary: Sofia Guzman Yamile; Sheriff: Rolando Jose Guevara. On that occasion, was appointed Deputy Judge rapporteur Rodolfo Antonio Baptista Luzardo.

Through trial dates filed January 18 and October 2, 2007, as well as the January 31, 2008, the legal representation of the defendant company, called down "for delivery."

On April 24, 2008, empowered the court of the plaintiff requested the waiver is approved in the present case.

Then, on June 5, 2008, legal representation for the defendant requested were issued "for the delivery."

Finally, on 30 July 2008, agreed to the redeployment of papers Accidental Chambers, and the paper were reassigned to Judge Levis Ignacio Zerpa, who as such endorses this decision.

I

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

It is for the Board to rule on whether or not dismissal of the proceedings by counsel Hari Marianna Almeida, acting in his capacity as legal representative of the company Minera Las Cristinas, CA, by diligence dated February 25, 2003; why, for the purpose of determining whether the waiver meets the requirements expressed for theoretical validity of approval, it is noted:

Stipulated in Article 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with the discontinuance of the proceedings, as follows:

"Article 265. The applicant may simply cancel the procedure, but if the withdrawal takes place after the act of the answer to the complaint, shall be valid without the consent of the opposing party. "

Under the rule above transcript, it appears that the case was submitted a withdrawal pure and simple procedure, which is evidence of the diligence above, which shows the will of the plaintiff to discontinue the proceedings relating to the demand for contract compliance.

Observed this, and given the opposition filed by the attorney of the judicial action on the abandonment raised by the legal parent of the applicant, specifically: "(...) a) The legal representation of MINC only has the power to cancel, has no more power or ability to dispose of the object to be seen on the dispute (...) ", the Board notes that in this case that has happened is an abandonment of the procedure, which translates as the only legal consequence extinction for instance, as is clear from Article 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

"Article 266. The abandonment of the procedure only terminates the proceedings, but the applicant may not again propose the demand before than ninety days. "(Highlights of the Board).

For the above reasons, the objection raised by the defendant raised the abandonment by the parent corporation of the judicial Mineras Las Cristinas, CA by the alleged inability to dispose of the object on which to see the dispute, should be declared inadmissible, since it is not in the presence of a dismissal of the action covered by Article 263 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but a withdrawal of procedure established in Articles 265 and 266 eiusdem.

From the above, since the purpose of determining the legitimacy and legal standing of the lawyer Marianna Almeida Hari, it is noted that the said attorney is the legal representative of the company Minera Las Cristinas CA, as evidence of the Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting of Shareholders of that company held on August 17, 2001, (the student folios 121, 122 and 123), which is their designation, and it is noted that such lawyer is given express authority to waive, as it appears Chapter V entitled "Legal Representative" (a student folios 152 and 153) contained in the document establishing Statutory Minera Las Cristinas CA, authenticated by the Notary Public of the Quinta del Municipio Chacao Miranda on September 5, 1997. Accordingly, such expression of will is not closed, because this lawyer has the power to stop.

Moreover, it is clear that the abandonment of the procedure was done before they have verified the answer to the complaint, so there is no reason of public policy that opposes or impedes its passage, there is the compliance of counsel proposing withdrawal of the requirements, why should the state Board approved the withdrawal made. So declares.

Finally, the Board notes that counsel Simon Araque, acting with the above, noting the measure of opposition to the withdrawal, "The only legal representation of the MINC is empowered to withdraw, but not hold the power or ability to dispose of object to be seen on the controversy, "confuses the requirements of Section 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure for approval to discontinue the proceedings and transactions with those required to approve the discontinuance of the proceedings, as referred to in the present case, under Article 265 eiusdem. Because of this argument is dismissed by the court seized of the Corporación Venezolana de Guayana. So decided.

Regarding the second point of objection raised by the abandonment of the legal guardian Corporación Venezolana de Guayana, which refers to: "(...) b) the nature of demand has tips immeasurable damage to the CVG, which is not compensate MINC is possible without leaving the trance with a simple dismissal, without further ado (...) "(sic) by not having brought the proponent of any evidence which might give off that" you have struck immeasurable damage "to its represented, coupled with the fact that this is not a case for opposition to the discontinuance of the proceedings, the Board must declare such opposition equally inappropriate. So declares.

II
DECISION
By virtue of the foregoing, the Acting Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, to administer justice on behalf of the Republic and by authority of the Act states approved the discontinuance of proceedings by the attorney Hari Marianna Almeida, acting in its judicial capacity as representative of the corporate MINERA Las Cristinas, CA, in the demand for compliance with contract attempt against the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana.

Publish, register and communicate. Filed this case. Comply with the order.

Given, signed and sealed in the Hall Office of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court in Caracas, to the twenty-eight (28) days of January in the year two thousand nine (2009). 198 Years of Independence º and 149 º of the Federation.

The President

EVELYN MARRERO ORTÍZ

Vice President

YOLANDA GUERRERO JAIMES

Judges,

LEVIS ZERPA IGNACIO

Reporter

EMIR GARCÍA ROSAS

RODOLFO LUZARDO BAPTISTA

Substitute Judge

The Secretary,

Yamila SOFÍA GUZMÁN

In twenty-nine (29) January, two thousand nine, was released and recorded the previous sentence as No. 00117.

The Secretary,

Yamila SOFÍA GUZMÁN