G.R. No. 157315 - City Government of Butuan vs. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157315)

Key Dates

Relevant procedural chronology: February 2002 (Mayor’s letter to Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sanggunian Resolution supporting denial/closure); February 18, 2002 (final notice to CBS); February 19, 2002 (CBS filed complaint for prohibition, mandamus, damages and sought TRO/preliminary injunction, Civil Case No. 5193); February 20–26, 2002 and March 11–15, 2002 (series of judicial orders, inhibitions, TRO and issuance of writ of preliminary injunction); October 28, 2002 and January 29, 2003 (Court of Appeals decisions); Supreme Court decision date: December 1, 2010 (decision uses the 1987 Constitution).

Applicable Law and Legal Standards

Governing constitutional principle: freedom of speech and of the press under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Relevant procedural rules: Section 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court (disqualification and voluntary inhibition of judges); Rule 58, Sections 5 et seq., Rules of Court (temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction procedure). Equitable standards for injunctions: requisites are (a) prima facie existence of the right to be protected, (b) that the challenged act violates that right, and (c) urgent necessity to prevent serious damage; also that a preliminary injunction is proper when the applicant appears entitled to final relief or presents a prima facie case.

Antecedent Administrative Actions

Mayor Plaza asserted that Bombo Radyo was operating in a residentially zoned subdivision under a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) whose authorized period had expired (TUP initially limited and renewable up to 1999), alleged failure to renew the TUP since 1997, alleged absence of Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), and numerous complaints about the station’s broadcasts; she sought Sanggunian support to deny the mayor’s permit and close the station, and the Sangguniang Panlungsod adopted Resolution-057-2002 backing the Mayor’s decision.

Filing of Judicial Action by CBS

On February 19, 2002 CBS filed Civil Case No. 5193 in the Regional Trial Court, seeking prohibition, mandamus, and damages and praying for a TRO and preliminary injunction to restrain the City Government and the Mayor from closing or interfering with the station’s operations; the case was initially raffled to Branch 2, presided over by Judge Rosarito P. Dabalos.

Judicial Inhibitions, Reassignments, and TRO

Judge Dabalos voluntarily inhibited himself on February 20, 2002 and directed return of the case for re-raffle, explaining that public criticisms aired by CBS commentators and incidents involving station personnel might affect his impartiality; Vice-Executive Judge Victor Tomaneng intervened due to exigent circumstances (no judge available to hear the case) and issued an ex parte TRO on February 21, 2002 to maintain the status quo for twenty days; subsequent attempts to reassign the case to other branches were frustrated by recusals, leading to the case being returned to Judge Dabalos and prompting procedural exchanges about designation of another judge outside the locality.

Proceedings Before Judge Dabalos and Notice to Parties

Despite his earlier inhibition and a subsequent referral of that inhibition to the Court Administrator for possible designation of another judge, Judge Dabalos reset and conducted hearing dates (March 11–12, 2002) on CBS’s application for a preliminary injunction after CBS’s counsel indicated withdrawal of the request for designation of another judge; notice of hearing was served on petitioners, who then moved to quash the notice and insisted Judge Dabalos had lost authority to act.

Grant of Preliminary Injunction by RTC-Branch 2

On March 12, 2002, after the petitioners failed to present evidence in response to the court’s order to show cause why the writ should not issue, Judge Dabalos granted CBS’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoined the City Government and the Mayor from closing or padlocking the station upon CBS’s posting of a P200,000 injunction bond, and directed service and enforcement of the writ; the writ issued on March 15, 2002 after CBS posted the bond.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Its Ruling

The petitioners filed a special civil action in the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul Judge Dabalos’s orders; the CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in Judge Dabalos’s re-assumption of jurisdiction given the peculiar circumstances (lack of any other available judge and the imminent expiration of the TRO), and held that the preliminary injunction was properly issued since CBS had a franchise and the petitioners’ threatened actions would likely curtail CBS’s constitutional freedom of speech and franchise rights.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition for review before the Supreme Court raised two principal contentions: (1) that Judge Dabalos acted with grave abuse of discretion by re-assuming jurisdiction after previously self-inhibiting without sufficient notice to petitioners; and (2) that the court committed grave abuse by issuing the writ of preliminary injunction without requiring CBS to first present evidence establishing its clear right to the injunction.

Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision; it held that Judge Dabalos lawfully re-assumed jurisdiction after re-assessing the circumstances that had originally induced his self-inhibition and that such reconsideration is within the judge’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of arbitrariness or whimsy; the Court also upheld the issuance of the preliminary injunction without CBS’s formal presentation of evidence because CBS’s verified complaint and the surrounding, undisputed facts (including ownership of a congressional franchise and the imminent administrative action to close the station) supported a prima facie right and the urge

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 157315)

Antecedents and Factual Background

City Mayor Leonides Theresa B. Plaza wrote to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Butuan City in February 2002 to solicit support for her decision to deny Consolidated Broadcasting System (CBS)/Bombo Radyo-Butuan’s application for a mayor’s permit and to close the radio station, citing violations of the City’s zoning ordinance.
The Mayor’s letter recited that Bombo Radyo had intended to operate in Arujiville Subdivision (a residential area) since 1994, had been informed it violated the zoning ordinance, and had been allowed to operate by virtue of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) allegedly only valid up to 1999 and renewable yearly up to five years; CBS allegedly renewed the TUP in 1995 and 1996 but had not renewed it thereafter.
The Mayor’s letter also alleged numerous complaints against Bombo Radyo for “violation of private rights, inciting people to go rise against the government, malicious imputations, insinuations against people not of their liking, false or fabricated news,” and cited failure to secure an ECC, concluding she decided to deny the mayor’s permit and close the station; she forwarded the matter to the Sangguniang Panlungsod for a resolution of support.
The Sangguniang Panlungsod adopted Resolution-057-2002 “to strongly support the decision of the City Mayor to deny the application of Consolidated Broadcasting System Development Corporation (Bombo Radyo-Butuan) for a Mayor’s Permit and thereafter close the radio station.”
On February 18, 2002, the City licensing officer served CBS’s station manager a “final/last notice of violation and demand to cease and desist illegal operation,” warning of recommendation to close the business if non-compliant.

Complaint Filed and Relief Sought

On February 19, 2002, CBS and its manager Norberto P. Pagaspas filed a complaint for prohibition, mandamus, and damages against the City Government of Butuan and Mayor Plaza in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 5193, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction to restrain petitioners from closing or otherwise disturbing CBS’s operations.
Civil Case No. 5193 was raffled to Branch 2, presided by Judge Rosarito P. Dabalos.

Initial Inhibitions, Raffle Problems, and Assignment Difficulties

On February 20, 2002, Judge Rosarito P. Dabalos voluntarily inhibited himself and directed the return of Civil Case No. 5193 to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle, stating circumstances that might affect his objectivity and impartiality, including: critical and judgmental attacks over the air against him by CBS, a reporter shouting disrespectfully at him near the Hall of Justice, CBS commentaries making pronouncements on legal matters, and use of disrespectful and indecent words causing confusion and potential loss of credibility for the court and public officials; he emphasized that press freedom should not be abused.
On the same day, Judge Victor Tomaneng (Presiding Judge of Branch 33) also issued an order inhibiting himself from handling Civil Case No. 5193 and, in his capacity as Vice Executive Judge, directed assignment of the case to Branch 5 without raffle because of expediency and practical considerations, citing the absence of available judges and other recusals or inapplicabilities (e.g., exclusive Family Court).
Civil Case No. 5193 was forwarded to Branch 5 (Judge Augustus L. Calo), who recused because his wife had recently been appointed by Mayor Plaza to the City’s Legal Office; Judge Calo ordered immediate return of the case to the Clerk of Court for forwarding to Vice Executive Judge Tomaneng.
With no other judge available to handle the case, Judge Tomaneng formally returned the case to Judge Dabalos, stating that Judge Dabalos’ initial reason for inhibition did not amount to a plausible ground to inhibit and instructing him to hear the case unless the Supreme Court approved the inhibition.

Issuance of TRO by Vice-Executive Judge Tomaneng

On February 21, 2002, Judge Tomaneng issued a TRO to maintain the status quo until the other issues in the complaint could be heard and determined, enjoining the City Government and Mayor Plaza from closing, padlocking, preventing, disturbing, or molesting Radyo Bombo’s business operations for twenty (20) days, and setting the matter for summary hearing on March 11, 2002 to resolve application for injunction.
The TRO was issued ex parte and was expressly effective for twenty (20) days from issuance.

Motions, Requests for Designation of Another Judge, and Pleadings

On February 25, 2002, petitioners filed an urgent motion to lift or dissolve the TRO in Branch 2 (Judge Dabalos’s sala).
On February 26, 2002, Judge Dabalos referred his order of inhibition in Civil Case No. 5193 to the Court Administrator for consideration, requesting designation of another judge not stationed in Butuan City and Agusan del Norte to handle the case.
CBS requested designation of another judge to hear its application for a writ of preliminary injunction (the hearing having been set by Judge Tomaneng for March 11, 2002).
On March 8, 2002, petitioners filed their answer to the complaint, alleging affirmative and special defenses, praying for dismissal of the complaint, lifting of the TRO, denial of the preliminary injunction, and seeking counterclaims for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.

Hearings, Notice, and Judge Dabalos’s Re-assumption of Jurisdiction

The hearing on CBS’s application for preliminary injunction was set for March 11, 2002. CBS’s counsel manifested desistance from the earlier request for designation of another judge; Judge Dabalos noted this and reset the hearing to March 12, 2002 to give petitioners opportunity to show cause.
Judge Dabalos caused a notice of hearing to be served on petitioners. Upon receipt, petitioners moved to quash the notice and prayed that the TRO be lifted, insisting Judge Dabalos had already lost authority to act by virtue of his inhibition.
Civil Case No. 5193 was called on March 12, 2002; the parties and counsel appeared. At the close of proceedings, Judge Dabalos granted CBS’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, stating that defendants did not introduce any evidence despite the court’s order