G.R. No. 209440 - FCF Minerals Corporation vs. Joseph Lunag, Alexander Simongo, Maximo Alejandro, Jacqueline Bugnay, Pen Sotero, et al.

FCF Minerals Corporation (FCF) is a Philippine domestic corporation engaged in mining. In 2009, it entered into a Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with the Republic of the Philippines, granting it exclusive rights to explore, mine, and utilize minerals within a 3,093.51-hectare area in Barangay Runruno, Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya, using open-pit methods.
In 2012, Joseph Lunag and 21 others (Lunag, et al.), claiming affiliation with Ifugao, Kalanguya, and Cordillera Indigenous Cultural Communities, filed a petition for the Writ of Kalikasan, Environment Protection Order, and Writ of Continuing Mandamus before the Supreme Court against FCF, DENR, MGB, and NCIP. They alleged that open-pit mining would destroy forest cover, watersheds, rice paddies, burial grounds, and that the FTAA violated Section 19(f) of RA 7942 and lacked genuine free and prior informed consent.

On September 4, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan, held in abeyance any Temporary Environment Protection Order, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). Respondents were ordered to file verified returns.
In its return, FCF characterized the petition as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), argued compliance with environmental laws (EPC, feasibility study), denial of environmental damage, and asserted respondents were unlicensed small-scale miners seeking extortion. The government agencies likewise filed a consolidated return denying violations and non-overlap with any ancestral domain.
FCF and the Office of the Solicitor General filed Omnibus Motions for hearing. The CA denied the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order for lack of extreme urgency, proceeded with hearings despite respondents’ absence, and allowed FCF’s presentation of witnesses and documents.

On May 24, 2013, the CA dismissed the petition for Writs of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus, finding respondents filed for self-serving reasons, that environmental damage was attributable to small-scale miners, and that respondents failed to state causes of action against government agencies. It also ruled that Continuing Mandamus is a separate special action and denied FCF’s counterclaim for actual and exemplary damages for lack of basis.
The CA denied FCF’s motion for reconsideration, reaffirming lack of competent proof for damages and holding that awarding damages would chill legitimate environmental actions and contravene the anti-SLAPP purpose. It likewise denied attorney’s fees given respondents’ limited financial capacity.

FCF filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 209440) arguing entitlement to actual damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs totaling ₱10,774,309.00 under Rule 6, Section 4 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases and Civil Code Articles 2199, 2208, and 2229.
FCF submitted judicial affidavits, receipts, vouchers, and certifications to substantiate management time lost, legal fees, and photographic services. It disputed CA’s finding of lack of evidence.
Respondents failed to file comments despite orders and fines. The sole issue framed by the Court was whether respondents’ petition was a SLAPP.

Whether respondents’ Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus constitutes a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
Whether FCF, as petitioner-respondent below, is entitled to actual and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit as a prevailing party in a SLAPP dismissal.