Case Digest (G.R. No. 199172) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On August 8, 2000, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 092-2000, regulating the construction, erection, installation, repair, renovation and maintenance of outdoor advertising materials within the city. Key provisions declared billboards prohibited in residential zones and required minimum setbacks (Section 7), designated certain bridge approaches as “regulated areas” for aesthetic preservation (Section 8), imposed a schedule of sign-permit fees (Section 37), and authorized the City Engineer to remove illegal or non-compliant signage after a 60-day cure period (Section 45). Beginning in 2003, the City Engineer issued notices to outdoor advertisers, including respondent Alex P. Montaaëz, owner of Ad & Promo Management (APM), to secure or renew sign permits. In February and March 2006, “orders of demolition” directed APM and others to dismantle non-permitted billboards within three days or face summary removal. On March 28, 2006, Montaaëz filed before th Case Digest (G.R. No. 199172) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Adoption and Content of Ordinance No. 092-2000
- On August 8, 2000, the Davao City Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No. 092-2000 (“Ordinance”) entitled “An Ordinance Regulating the Construction, Repair, Renovation, Erection, Installation and Maintenance of Outdoor Advertising Materials and For Related Purposes.”
- Key provisions included:
- Section 7 – Billboard restrictions (e.g., no billboards in residential zones; 150 m line of sight; 10 m setback from road right-of-way).
- Section 8 – “Regulated areas” within 200 m of specified bridges to preserve scenic views.
- Section 37 – Fees for sign permits based on display surface, structure, renewal, and electrical permits.
- Section 45 – Removal of illegal materials, allowing 60 days’ notice for non-compliance.
- Early Enforcement and Demolition Orders
- Beginning in 2003, the City Engineer sent notices to outdoor advertising businesses, including APM (owned by Alex P. Montaaez), reminding them to secure new or renewed sign permits under the Ordinance.
- In February and March 2006, the City Engineer issued orders of demolition directing erring businesses to “voluntarily dismantle” non-compliant billboards within three days or face summary removal scheduled on March 30, 2006.
- RTC Proceedings and Injunction
- On March 28, 2006, Montaaez filed Special Civil Case No. 31,346-06 before RTC Branch 14, Davao City, seeking:
- Declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 092-2000 and the March 17, 2006 demolition order.
- Writ of preliminary injunction against demolition.
- On April 17, 2006, the RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction, restraining implementation of the demolition orders pending trial.
- Administrative Orders Affecting Billboard Permits
- In October 2006, President Arroyo issued AO 160 and AO 160-A directing nationwide inspection and abatement of hazardous or unlawful billboards.
- Acting DPWH Secretary Ebdane issued NBCDO Memorandum Circular No. 3, directing LGU building officials to cease processing billboard permit applications, leading Davao City to suspend pending permits.
- Trial Court Decision and Appeals
- RTC Decision dated January 19, 2009: declared Sections 7, 8, and 41 of the Ordinance void for inconsistency with Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code).
- RTC Joint Order dated April 1, 2009: modified to void Sections 7, 8, and 37; delete Section 41; and permanently enjoin enforcement of those provisions.
- City Engineer appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- CA Decision dated June 14, 2011: affirmed voiding Sections 7, 8, and 45; reinstated Section 41.
- CA Amended Decision dated October 13, 2011: further nullified Section 37; maintained nullification of Sections 7, 8, and 45; and kept Section 41 in force.
- Petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether Section 7 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 conflicts with the National Building Code.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 8 null and void.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 37 null and void.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 45 null and void.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)