Case Summary (G.R. No. 209440)
Key Dates
2009: FTAA executed between FCF Minerals and the Republic of the Philippines.
2012: Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, Environmental Protection Order, and Continuing Mandamus filed by Lunag, et al.
2013: Court of Appeals issues resolutions denying relief, dismissing petition, and denying FCF’s claim for damages.
2021: Supreme Court resolves FCF’s petition for review.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution – guarantees to free speech, expression, assembly, right to petition (Art. III, Sec. 4) and right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Art. II, Sec. 16).
Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act).
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases – special actions including Writ of Kalikasan and anti-SLAPP provisions (Rule 1 §4(g); Rule 6).
Factual Background
Respondents alleged that FCF’s planned open-pit mining would destroy forest cover, watersheds, rice paddies, residences, burial grounds, and sacred sites, and pose landslide risks. They contended the FTAA violated RA 7942’s prohibition on mining in virgin forests and that their Indigenous consent was fraudulently obtained. Relief sought included issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan, an Environment Protection Order, and a Writ of Continuing Mandamus directing government agencies to review and modify mining methods and contracts.
Petition for Writ of Kalikasan
The Supreme Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan, referred the case to the Court of Appeals, and held in abeyance the Environmental Protection Order. Respondents, including FCF Minerals and the DENR, were ordered to file verified returns.
Invocation of SLAPP Defense
In its return, FCF Minerals characterized the petition as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). It asserted full compliance with environmental laws, possession of an Environmental Compliance Certificate, and lack of evidence of actual environmental damage. Government agencies likewise reported no legal violations and denied that respondents’ ancestral domain claims overlapped the contract area.
Court of Appeals Rulings
– Denied the Temporary Environmental Protection Order for lack of extreme urgency and irreparable injury.
– Held respondents’ petition was motivated by self-interest (illegal small-scale mining), not environmental advocacy.
– Dismissed the Petition for Writs of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus for failure to state a cause of action and improper auxiliary use of Continuing Mandamus.
– Denied FCF’s counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees, finding no competent proof and that an award would chill legitimate environmental petitions.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the action filed against FCF Minerals constitutes a SLAPP under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, thus entitling FCF to damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Definition and Scope of SLAPP Under Environmental Rules
Rule 1 §4(g) defines SLAPP as any suit—civil, criminal, or administrative—brought to harass or stifle legal recourse in environmental enforcement or rights assertion. Rule 6 prescribes raising SLAPP as an affirmative defense, summary hearing, and counterclaims for damages when a suit is dismissed as SLAPP.
Supreme Court Analysis on SLAPP
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209440)
Facts
- FCF Minerals Corporation (“FCF”) is a Philippine domestic corporation engaged in mining under a Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) covering 3,093.51 ha in Barangay Runruno, Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya.
- In 2012, Joseph Lunag and co-petitioners—claiming Ifugao, Kalanguya, and Cordillera Indigenous Cultural Communities status—filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan, Prayer for Environment Protection Order (EPO), and Writ of Continuing Mandamus.
- They alleged FCF’s open-pit mining threatened ancestral lands, forest cover, watersheds, rice paddies, residences, burial grounds, and worship houses, and risked landslides within 50–100 m of their homes.
- They claimed violation of Section 19(f) of RA 7942 (no mining in virgin forests, watersheds, protected areas) and argued Indigenous consent was fraudulently procured.
- Reliefs sought included issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan, stop-work EPO, review and amendment of mining methods and FTAA, NCIP injunctive powers, and assistance in relocation and compensation of affected ICCs.
Procedural History
- The Supreme Court issued the Writ of Kalikasan, held the EPO in abeyance, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for acceptance of the writ, hearing, evidence, and judgment.
- FCF filed its Return to the writ characterizing the petition as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and denying material allegations, asserting compliance with environmental requirements.
- DENR, MGB, and NCIP (through the OSG) filed a consolidated return, field reports, and certifications finding no environmental violations or ancestral overlap.
- The CA denied the EPO for lack of extreme urgency, conducted hearings (respondents defaulted), and allowed FCF to present evidence.
- On May 24, 2013, the CA dismissed the petitions for Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus for lack of genuine environmental concern and cause of action, attributing alleged damage to small-scale miners.
- The CA also denied FCF’s SLAPP-back counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees, for lack of basis and to avoid chilling legitimate environmental suits.
- FCF’s motion for reconsideration was denied; FCF then filed a petition for review on damages and attorney’s fees under RPEC Rule 6, Sec. 4 and Civil Code provisions.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- The petition was a SLAPP lacking any evidence of environmental harm that would justify the writ.
- FCF fully complied with its FTAA, held an ECC, and secured DENR approval of its mining feasibility.
- Open-pit