Business
Dismissal of Writ of Kalikasan
Dismissal of Writ of Kalikasan.
About this update from Metals Exploration Plc
[{"type":"text","content":"\n \nRNS Number : 7634F Metals Exploration PLC 29 May 2013 \n \n\n29 May 2013\n \nMETALS EXPLORATION PLC\n \nMetals Exploration plc (AIM: MTL) (\"Metals Exploration\" or the \"Company\"), the natural resources exploration and development company with assets in the Pacific Rim region.\n \n \nDismissal of Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus\n \nOn 9 November 2012 the Company announced that \"FCF Minerals Corporation (FCF), a wholly owned subsidiary of Metals Exploration Plc (MEP) and owner of the Runruno gold project in the Philippines, The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, The Mines and Geosciences Bureau and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples have jointly been served with an application for a Writ of Kalikasan, seeking any number of remedies from a restraining order through ordering the payment of additional compensation to termination of the Runruno FTAA.\" The Company also announced \"FCF believes the basis of the writ is flawed with significant inaccurate \"facts\", and has a vexatious element.\"\n \nWorking in conjunction with The Department of Environment and Natural Resources ('DENR'), The Mines and Geosciences Bureau ('MGB') and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples ('NCIP'), FCF defended its position and rights in the Supreme Court of the Philippines through the Court of Appeals. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals was delivered on 24 May 2013 and the petition for the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus was dismissed. This decision vindicates the Company and its operations at Runruno and the judge ruled on the suit brought against it by the petitioners as follows:\n \na) it was unsubstantiated and the petitioners showed a 'clear lack of interest in prosecuting',\nb) it wasn't motivated by a concern for the protection of the environment, and\nc) it was a frivolous action as FCF is not and had not been 'committing acts inimical to the observance of environmental laws'.\n \nThe Company defended itself on the basis that both writs were designed as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ('SLAPP'), which had the intention to waste the time and resources of FCF through 'costly and emotionally exhausting litigation' in an attempt to frus...