G.R. No. 209440 , February 15, 2021
FCF MINERALS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPH LUNAG, ALEXANDER SIMONGO, MAXIMO ALEJANDRO, JACQUELINE BUGNAY, PENNAN SOTERO, JONALYN SOTERO, MARINA SOTERO, VIRGINIA FABIA, MARLON BALANTE, WILLIAM BALANTE, JAMES SIMONGO, JOCELYN GUILLAO, GREGORIO OYANGWA, JOSIE GILLAO*, FELIX RAFAEL, JIMMY TANIZA, PATRICIO CULAY-ON, NAPOLEON NITAPAC, VICTOR CONDE, AND RAMON BOLANSONG, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

FCF Minerals Corporation (FCF Mineral) is a domestic mining corporation with a Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) covering a 3,093.51-hectare contract area in Nueva Vizcaya. In 2012, respondents Joseph Lunag, et al., claiming to belong to Indigenous Cultural Communities, filed a Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus before the Supreme Court against FCF Mineral and several government agencies. They alleged that FCF Mineral’s open-pit mining method would destroy their ancestral land, including forest cover, watersheds, and residential areas, and that the mining activities violated environmental laws and the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act due to a fraudulently obtained consent. The Supreme Court issued the Writ of Kalikasan and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing and judgment.
In its Return before the Court of Appeals, FCF Mineral argued that the petition was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), lacked evidence of environmental damage, and that it had complied with all legal requirements, including obtaining an Environment Compliance Certificate. FCF Mineral asserted it was still in the development phase, that open-pit mining was not prohibited, and that the contract area did not overlap with any ancestral domain as certified by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. The government agencies, through the Office of the Solicitor General, also filed a return, arguing the petition failed to state a cause of action and was unsupported by evidence.
The Court of Appeals denied the prayer for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order. During hearings, Lunag, et al. failed to appear and present evidence. FCF Mineral presented its evidence and, in its Memorandum, prayed for damages amounting to millions of pesos for lost management time, attorney’s fees, and evidence-gathering costs. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for the writs, ruling that Lunag, et al. filed it for self-serving reasons, as they were allegedly small-scale miners affected by FCF Mineral’s operations, and not out of genuine environmental concern. FCF Mineral then filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of its SLAPP defense and denial of its claim for damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing FCF Mineral’s defense that the petition filed against it was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and in denying its claim for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions. The Court held that the remedy of a SLAPP under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is a defense available to individuals or groups who are sued because of their environmental advocacy, to protect them from harassment suits intended to stifle public participation. It is not a remedy available to powerful corporations like FCF Mineral to stifle the actions of ordinary citizens seeking to hold them accountable. The SLAPP defense is intended to shield those who enforce environmental laws from retaliatory litigation, not to protect large concessionaires with legal obligations from suits questioning their compliance.
The Court further ruled that FCF Mineral’s claim for damages was properly denied. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases prohibit the filing of a counterclaim in a citizen’s suit, which includes a petition for a writ of kalikasan. Allowing such counterclaims or damages would defeat the purpose of encouraging citizen participation in environmental enforcement. The writ of kalikasan is a special remedy designed to provide a swift and inexpensive means to address environmental damage of such magnitude that it affects inhabitants across multiple cities or provinces, grounded in the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The Court emphasized that this remedy should not be burdened by the threat of costly counteractions from the entities being questioned.