Case Digest (G.R. No. 199172)
Facts:
Hon. Leoncio Evasco, Jr., et al. v. Alex P. Montanez, G.R. No. 199172, February 21, 2018, First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.On August 8, 2000, the City Government of Davao, through its Sangguniang Panlungsod, enacted Ordinance No. 092, Series of 2000 ("Ordinance No. 092-2000") regulating the construction, repair, erection, installation and maintenance of outdoor advertising materials. The ordinance set out provisions on location, size, fees, and removal of outdoor signs, including Sections 7 (setbacks and minimum distances), 8 (designated "regulated areas" to preserve scenic views), 37 (sign permit fees), and 45 (authority to remove illegal materials with prescribed notice periods).
Beginning in 2003 the Office of the City Engineer sent notices to outdoor advertisers, including Alex P. Montanez doing business as APM or Ad & Promo Management, to secure sign permits or renew existing permits. In February and March 2006 the City Engineer issued orders of demolition directing advertisers, including APM, to "voluntarily dismantle" offending billboards within three days or face summary removal; one scheduled summary removal was set for March 30, 2006.
In response, Montanez filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Davao City (Sp. Civil Case No. 31,346-06) on March 28, 2006 seeking an injunction and declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 092-2000 and the March 17, 2006 demolition order; the RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction on April 17, 2006, restraining the City officials from carrying out the demolition pending trial.
While the case was pending, national directives—Administrative Order No. 160 (Oct. 4, 2006), AO No. 160‑A (Oct. 10, 2006), and NBCDO Memorandum Circular No. 3 (Oct. 6, 2006)—directed inspections and temporary cessation of billboard permit processing. The City later issued another demolition order on September 25, 2008 against a different advertiser; this prompted the Davao Billboards and Signmakers Association, Inc. (DABASA) to intervene on behalf of its members, including APM.
The RTC, in a Decision dated January 19, 2009, declared Sections 7, 8 and 41 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 void as contrary to P.D. No. 1096 (the National Building Code); after motions the RTC modified its ruling by Joint Order dated April 1, 2009 to declare Sections 7, 8 and 37 void and to delete Section 41, while making the injunction permanent. The City Engineer appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 02281‑MIN.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated June 14, 2011 (and an Amended Decision dated October 13, 2011), affirmed the RTC in p...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioners sufficiently alleged a specific constitutional provision breached to overcome the presumption of an ordinance's constitutionality.
- Whether Section 7 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 is invalid for being inconsistent with the National Building Code.
- Whether Section 8 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 is invalid for relying on aesthetic considerations beyond the city's power.
- Whether Section 37 (fees) of Ordinance No. 092-2000 is null and void as excessive or otherwise invalid.
- Whether Section 45 (removal of illegal materials) of Ordinance No. 092-2000 is invalid for unduly expandin...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)