LNL Archipelago Minerals v. Agham Party List, G.R. No.

209165, April 12, 2016

Doctrine:

Facts:
Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) operates a mining claim in Zambales. It’s
mining area is covered by a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement by virtue of an Operating
Agreement with Filipinas Mining Corp.
LAMI then embarked to build a private, non-commercial port in Barangay Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz in
Zambales which is 25 kms away from the mining area. A port is a vital structure to the
operations of a mining company for the shipping out of ores and other mineral extracts. It
should be noted that 2 other companies are operating their ports in Brgy. Sta Cruz, to wit:
Shangfil and DMCI, since 2007.
The project of LAMI was supported by other mining corporations who doesn’t have their own
port – in the hopes that they would be able to use the LAMI port upon completion. On top of
this, the barangay and its residents were supportive of the said project – and that the
Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Cruz have already given its consent to the construction of the
project.
The problem occurred when the City Mayor of Sta. Cruz allegedly refused to issue a business
and mayor’s permit and to receive payment of occupation fees despite the necessary national
fees and licenses already acquired by them.
Mayor thus ordered LAMI to refrain from continuing its clearing works, directing the Sta. Cruz
Police to implement his orders. Lami contested the Mayor’s orders for being illegal and
baseless.
Thereafter, a member of the Committee on Ecology of the House of Representatives passed a
resolution (HR 117) entitled "Resolution Directing the Committee on Ecology to Conduct an
Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, on the Implementation of Republic Act No. 7942, Otherwise
Known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, Particularly on the Adverse Effects of Mining on
the Environment." HR 117 was issued in order to conduct an alleged ocular inspection of the
port side in aid of legislation – which resulted to an ocular inspection of the LAMI Port and
other ports in the area.
On top of this, the DENR then found violations in LAMI’s Environmental Compliance Certificate
(ECC), thus ordering it to cease and desist from further constructing and developing the port
until such time that the ECC has been complied.
Meanwhile, respondent Agham Party List filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan
against LAMI, DENR, PPA and the Zambales Police Provincial Office.
Agham alleged that LAMI violated the following laws for its acts of cutting mountain trees and
flattening the mountain which serves as a natural protective barrier of the towns around that
area.
1) Revised Forestry Code
2) Philippine Mining Act
The petition for Writ of Kalikasan was remanded by the SC to the CA – which then rendered a
judgment ruling in favor of the petitioner, LAMI. It found that the government, through the
CENRO, authorized LAMI to cut trees and LAMI strictly followed the guidelines stated in the
permit. And that there was no actual flattening of a mountain as there was no mountain to
speak of. As such, petition for a writ of Kalikasan was dissolved.
Agham filed a motion for reconsideration which was appreciated by the CA. The CA thus
reversed and set aside its original decision, thus granting the petition for Writ of Kalikasan,
directing LAMI to permanently CEASE and DESIST from scraping off the land formation in
question, and from performing any activities in violation of environmental laws; and to
rehabilitate the land formation and trees in the area.
Hence, LAMI filed a petition for review on certiorari with the SC.

Issue:
W/N LAMI violated environmental laws as alleged by Agham.

Ruling:
The present case involves the extraordinary remedy of a Writ of Kalikasan which is under the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. Section 1, Rule 7, Part III of the said Rules
provides:
Section 1. Nature of the writ. – The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical
person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization,
or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities
or provinces.
The Writ of Kalikasan, categorized as a special civil action and conceptualized as an
extraordinary remedy, covers environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The writ is available
against an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity.
The following requisites must be present to avail of this remedy:
(1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology;
(2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
(3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.
SC thus looked into the alleged violations of LAMI:
1) On the alleged violation/s against the Forestry Code:
Since LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by the CENRO and even passed the evaluation
conducted after the issuance of the permit, then clearly LAMI had the authority to cut trees and
did not violate Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code, as amended.

2) On the alleged violation/s of the Philippine Mining Act

LAMI is alleged to have violated Sections 57 (Expenditure for Community Development and
Science and Mining Technology) and 69 (Environmental Protection). However, these two
provisions are not applicable in the case. First, LAMI is not conducting any mining activity on the
port site. LAMI’s mine site is about 25 kilometers away from the port site. Second, LAMI
secured all the necessary permits and licenses for the construction of a port and LAMI’s activity
was limited to preparatory works for the port’s construction. The Philippine Mining Act deals
with mining operations and other mining activities. Sections 57 and 69 deal with the
development of a mining community and environmental protection covering a mineral
agreement or permit.

Petitioner Agham thus failed to prove any acts or omissions from LAMI that would warrant the
issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan. Furthermore, since the acts complained of are not present, then
the environmental damage is not substantiated. The magnitude of environmental damage is a
condition sine qua non in a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and must be
contained in the verified petition.
In sum, contrary to the findings of the appellate court in its Amended Decision, we find that
LAMI did not cause any environmental damage that prejudiced the life, health or property of
the inhabitants residing in the municipality of Sta. Cruz, the province of Zambales or in the
neighboring province of Pangasinan. Agham, as the party that has the burden to prove the
requirements for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ ofKalikasan, failed to prove (1) the
environmental laws allegedly violated by LAMI; and (2) the magnitude of the environmental
damage allegedly caused by LAMI in the construction of LAMI' s port facility in Brgy. Bolitoc,
Sta. Cruz, Zambales and its surrounding area. Thus, the petition for the issuance of the privilege
of the Writ of Kalikasan must be denied.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Amended Decision of the
Court of Appeals and REINSTATE AND AFFIRM the original Decision of the Court of Appeals
which DENIED the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan.