G.R. No. 243931 - Republic vs. Power Ads Intelli-Concepts Advertising and Production Corp.

On August 31, 2010, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under which the DPWH deputized the MMDA to enforce the provisions regarding regulated signs under Chapters 8 and 20 of PD 1096 (the “National Building Code of the Philippines”) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) within Metro Manila.
Pursuant to the MOA, the MMDA issued Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2011, which provided the guidelines for the issuance of clearances for advertising materials along major thoroughfares, thereby establishing the basis for enforcement actions related to billboard installations.

The MMDA issued a notice ordering Power Ads Intelli-Concpets Advertising and Production Corporation (“Power Ads”) to demolish its billboard at No. 81-B, 29th Street, C-5, Brgy. West Rembo, Makati City, citing that the structure was erected without the requisite clearance and permit.
In response, Power Ads filed a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction – seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction against the DPWH and MMDA, contesting both the issuance of orders mandating demolition and the validity of the regulatory issuances.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a TRO on January 20, 2012, after Power Ads sought to amend its complaint to include the City Building Official of Makati City.
Hearings were conducted where Power Ads presented its witnesses, including Narciso Francelizo and Connie Erispe, while the DPWH and MMDA presented Noemie T. Recio and Edgardo Lara; the City Building Official testified through Engr. Ruel B. Almazan.
On May 11, 2016, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the DPWH and MMDA from dismantling or “rolling down” the billboard, pending resolution of the main petition.
Subsequent motions by the DPWH and MMDA to dissolve the writ were denied, including their motions for reconsideration in the RTC Order dated August 12, 2016.

The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC’s orders, alleging grave abuse of discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
In its Decision dated June 22, 2018, the CA denied the petition, holding that Power Ads had met the requirements for injunctive relief by establishing a vested property interest through the purported building permit acquired by its predecessor, Ads and Signs.
The CA pointed to conflicting evidence regarding the building permit, noting that Power Ads alleged a material invasion of its right, while also highlighting procedural elements such as the issuance of demolition orders by the OBO-Makati.
A motion for reconsideration by the Republic was also denied in the CA Resolution dated December 17, 2018, leading to the filing of the instant petition for review on certiorari.

The Republic contended that Power Ads did not possess a clear legal right to construct or maintain the billboard because its alleged building permit was spurious, as testified by Engr. Almazan and evidenced by discrepancies in permit numbers and issuance dates.
It was argued that even if such a permit existed, Power Ads as a corporate entity distinct from its predecessor did not have an inherent vested right, as the installation of billboards constitutes a statutory privilege subject to the strict provisions of PD 1096.
Furthermore, the Republic questioned the delegation of rule-making authority to the MMDA under the MOA and the subsequent promulgation of MMDA regulations, alleging that such acts amounted to an undue delegation of legislative power that violated due process.

Whether the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Power Ads.
Whether Power Ads established a clear, unmistakable legal right to maintain its billboard structure by relying on the building permit allegedly obtained by its predecessor, despite conflicting evidence regarding its authenticity.
Whether the actions of the MMDA, as well as the Department of Public Works and Highways through the delegation under the MOA, were a valid exercise of their statutory and administrative authority, or if they constituted an unlawful delegation of rule-making power.
Whether the procedural due process requirements, particularly those provided under the Additional Rules and Regulations (ARR) concerning the abatement/demolition of signs, were observed in the ordering of the demolition of the billboard.