Case Digest (G.R. No. 209440)
Facts:
FCF Minerals Corporation v. Joseph Lunag, et al., G.R. No. 209440, February 15, 2021, the Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner FCF Minerals Corporation (FCF), a domestic mining corporation holding an FTAA over a 3,093.51-hectare contract area in Runruno, Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya, sought review of Court of Appeals resolutions that dismissed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus filed by respondents Joseph Lunag, et al. and denied FCF’s claim for damages.In 2012 respondents (who alleged membership in Ifugao, Kalanguya, and Cordillera Indigenous Cultural Communities) filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, praying also for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order and a writ of continuing mandamus against DENR, MGB, NCIP, and FCF. They alleged that FCF’s open-pit mining would destroy ancestral lands, watershed and forest cover, encroach on residential and burial areas, and violate Section 19(f) of RA 7942 and the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act; they also alleged that any consent obtained was fraudulent.
The Supreme Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for acceptance of the writ, hearing of evidence, and judgment. In its verified return before the Court of Appeals, FCF contended the petition was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), denied environmental violations, produced certifications (ECOC, Declaration of Mining Project Feasibility, MGB memoranda, and NCIP Certificates of Non-Overlap), and claimed respondents were illegal small-scale miners or migrants. Government agencies, through the OSG, also filed a consolidated return and submitted a Field Report finding no environmental law violations attributable to FCF.
The Court of Appeals denied the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order and, after hearings where respondents failed to appear, dismissed the Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus, concluding the petition was not filed out of genuine concern for the environment but for self-serving reasons; it found the harms alleged were attributable to small-scale mining and that respondents failed to state a cause of action against the agencies. The appellate court denied FCF’s counterclaim for actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for lack of competent proof and, in denying reconsideration, held that awarding damages would undermine the anti-SLAPP purpose and chill legitimate environmental actions.
FCF filed a petition for review in this Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ denial of damages and arguing it had proven P10,774,309.00 in actual damages and atto...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioners (respondents below) file a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation such that FCF is entitled to relief (dismissal and damages) under the Rules of Procedure for Environmen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)