Case Digest (G.R. No. 209165)
Facts:
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List, G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) operates a mining claim in Sta. Cruz, Zambales under Mineral Production Sharing Agreement No. 268-2008-III and an Operating Agreement with Filipinas Mining Corporation. LAMI planned and began preparatory works for a private, non-commercial port in Barangay Bolitoc (about 25 km from the mine) to serve its mining operations and obtained a series of national permits and clearances: an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by DENR-EMB R3, a provisional foreshore lease, Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) clearance/permits, a PPA special permit to operate a beaching facility, and a Tree Cutting Permit from DENR–CENRO.
Local support for the port came from several neighboring mining companies and barangay and municipal officials, but opposition arose from Sta. Cruz Mayor Luisito E. Marty, who issued an order (24 April 2012) directing LAMI to stop clearing works. DENR-EMB R3, responding to complaints, issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) on 1 June 2012 for alleged ECC condition breaches and a cease-and-desist; following a technical conference and LAMI’s submissions (including payment of penalties and a mitigation/rehabilitation plan), a DENR composite team inspected the site, found violations were corrected or minor, and the DENR-EMB R3 later lifted the cease-and-desist and restored the ECC by letter dated 24 October 2012.
On 6 June 2012 respondent Agham Party List, through its president Representative Angelo B. Palmones, filed a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan (docketed G.R. No. 201918) against LAMI, DENR, PPA and the Zambales Police Provincial Office (ZPPO), alleging violations of Section 68 of PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code, as amended) and Sections 57 and 69 of RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act) and claiming LAMI had flattened a mountain, causing environmental harm prejudicial to inhabitants of two or more cities/provinces. On 13 June 2012 the Supreme Court remanded the petition to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 00012) for hearing, reception of evidence and rendition of judgment under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rule 7, Part III).
At the Court of Appeals, the public respondents presented judicial affidavits from DENR‑EMB R3’s Regional Director Lormelyn Claudio, PPA officials and the ZPPO provincial director; LAMI presented its own witnesses and adopted public respondents’ testimonies. DENR‑CENRO’s Tree Cutting Permit and a Post‑Evaluation Report, a Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) geosciences inspection concluding the landform was an “elongated mound” (maximum elevation ~23–26 m above mean sea level), a DENR composite team report finding only minimal/localized impact, and a Geoscience Foundation study concluding the hill was too small to function as a protective mountain were all admitted in evidence. Agham’s lone witness, Rep. Palmones, testified he lacked technical competence to establish that the landform was a mountain.
On 23 November 2012 the Court of Appeals denied Agham’s petition for a Writ of Kalikasan....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did LAMI violate the environmental laws alleged by Agham (Section 68 of PD 705 and Sections 57 and 69 of RA 7942)?
- Did LAMI flatten a mountain and cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces, thereby warranting issuanc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)