Case Digest (G.R. No. 170270)
Facts:
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Hon. Ceasar G. Dy, Felicisimo G. Meer, Bagnos Maximo, Racma Fernandez‑Garcia and the City of Cauayan, G.R. Nos. 170270 & 179411, April 02, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Newsounds and CBS are corporations operating Bombo Radyo DZNC (AM) and Star FM DWIT (FM) in Cauayan City, Isabela. Beginning in 1996 they relocated to a property owned by CBS Development Corporation (CDC); the HLURB issued a zoning decision on 5 July 1996 classifying the property as commercial, the local Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (OMPDC) repeatedly certified the property as commercial (1996–2001), the stations obtained mayor’s permits (1997–2001) and CDC paid real property taxes on a commercial classification.
In January 2002 petitioners sought renewal of the mayor’s permit. Thereafter City Zoning Administrator‑Designate Bagnos Maximo began requiring either DAR-approved land conversion papers or a sanggunian reclassification resolution before issuing a zoning clearance. Because petitioners could not immediately produce those documents they were prevented from obtaining the mayor’s permit; they filed petitions for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) (variously raffled to Branch 19 and later Branch 20), and sought injunctive relief. The DAR Region II subsequently issued an Order (Director Abrino Aydinan) recognizing the land’s non‑agricultural character and formally excluding it from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Tensions escalated: respondents closed petitioners’ stations on 17 February 2004; petitioners obtained a COMELEC status‑quo order on 23 March 2004 but Mayor Ceasar Dy issued a closure order on 24 March 2004; COMELEC ultimately extended protection until 9 June 2004, after which respondents again closed the stations on 10 June 2004. Petitioners filed a mandamus action (SCA No. 20‑171) with accompanying applications for TRO and preliminary mandatory injunction, which the RTC denied or left undecided; on 14 September 2004 the RTC denied the main petition for mandamus and later denied reconsideration.
Petitioners brought two separate appeals to the Court of Appeals: a petition for certiorari (CA G.R. No. 87815) and an appeal from the RTC decision (CA‑G.R. SP No. 88283). The Court of Appeals denied relief in both decisions (27 October 2005 and 30 May 2007). Petitioners then filed the present Rule 45 petitions in the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 170270 and 179411). The Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction in G.R. No. 170270 on 23 January 2006 and consolidated the two cases on 21 January 2008.
Petitioners alleged that respondents’ withholding of permits and physical closure amounted to a content‑based prior restraint and were animated by political motive—Bombo Radyo had reported on alleged election irregularities tied to the Dy political family and a rival s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by denying or impliedly denying petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without providing a hearing?
- Did respondents’ actions—refusal to issue zoning clearances/mayor’s permits and the closure of petitioners’ radio stations—constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech and of the press, and was the refusal justified by the claim that the property remained agricultural?
- Are petitioners entitled to writs of mandamus and preliminary mandatory injunction and t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)