Case Summary (G.R. No. 199172)
Ordinance No. 092-2000: Relevant Provisions
Ordinance No. 092-2000 regulates construction, repair, erection, installation and maintenance of outdoor advertising materials in Davao City. Section 7 (Billboard) prohibits outdoor advertising in residential zones, requires 150 meters unobstructed line of sight between adjacent billboards, and mandates billboards along highways be located at least 10 meters from property lines abutting road right-of-way. Section 8 (Regulated Areas) designates bridge approach areas within 200 meters of specified bridges as regulated to preserve natural views and beauty. Section 37 prescribes a detailed schedule of sign permit fees (display surface fees by type, poster and temporary sign fees, structure fees, renewal and other fees). Section 45 (Removal) authorizes the City Engineer, upon recommendation of the Building Official, to remove noncompliant advertising at the displaying party’s expense but requires that the displaying party be given a reasonable period of sixty (60) days from receipt of notice to comply in specified instances.
Administrative Enforcement and Early Litigation
Beginning 2003 the City Engineer issued notices to outdoor advertisers, including APM, to secure permits or renewals under the ordinance. In February and March 2006 the City Engineer issued orders directing voluntary dismantling within three days, with scheduled summary removals (e.g., March 30, 2006). MontaAez filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on March 28, 2006 seeking injunction and declaratory relief challenging the ordinance and demolition orders. The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction on April 17, 2006 restraining demolition pending trial.
National Directives Affecting Billboard Permits
After typhoon damage in 2006, the President issued Administrative Order No. 160 directing the DPWH to inspect and abate hazardous or illegally constructed billboards; AO No. 160-A specified legal grounds and procedures. The Acting DPWH Secretary issued NBCDO Memorandum Circular No. 3 directing local Building Officials to cease processing or issuing and renewing billboard permits, which caused suspension of pending local permit applications.
RTC Decisions on the Ordinance
The RTC, in its January 19, 2009 Decision, declared Sections 7, 8 and 41 of the ordinance void and unconstitutional and made the injunction permanent. After reconsideration, the RTC’s April 1, 2009 Joint Order modified the ruling to declare Sections 7, 8 and 37 void for being contrary to the National Building Code, deleted Section 41, and maintained the permanent injunction.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning
The Court of Appeals denied the City Engineer’s appeal and in its June 14, 2011 Decision (and amended October 13, 2011) affirmed portions of the RTC rulings while adjusting specifics. The CA held Sections 7 and 8 and, later, Section 37 null and void and also declared Section 45 null and void, but reinstated Section 41. The CA relied on City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. to conclude Ordinance No. 092-2000 conflicted with the National Building Code: (1) Section 7 imposed a 10-meter setback inconsistent with Section 1002 of the National Building Code (which allows only limited projections and small encroachments); (2) Section 8 attempted to regulate aesthetics and thus exceeded permissible bases for regulation under precedents such as People v. Fajardo; and (3) Section 45 expanded the Building Official’s authority beyond the scope allowed by the National Building Code, which permits continued operation if a certified engineer attests to structural integrity.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The petition raised four principal issues: whether Section 7 of the ordinance contradicts the National Building Code; whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 8 void; whether the CA erred in declaring Section 37 void; and whether the CA erred in declaring Section 45 void. The petitioners argued the ordinance was not inconsistent with the National Building Code, relied on the local government’s charter powers under RA 4354 and LGC Section 458(a)(3)(iv) to regulate signs and fix fees, and contended the CA failed to state legal bases (invoking the constitutional requirement for courts to express facts and law on which decisions are based). Respondents argued Sections 7 and 8 conflicted with the National Building Code and that Section 37’s fees were excessive; they also contended Section 45 constituted undue delegation.
Supreme Court’s Analytical Framework and Precedence
The Supreme Court held that the proper inquiry is whether the local legislative body had authority to enact the ordinance and whether the ordinance contravenes fundamental law or is unreasonable, oppressive, discriminatory, or otherwise invalid. The Court emphasized that Congress (through the Davao City Charter) expressly delegated to the Sangguniang Panlungsod the authority to regulate and fix license fees for billboards and similar structures, thereby vesting the local council with police power in this specific area. Given that specific delegation, the local ordinance need not be subordinate to or consistent with a general law such as the National Building Code; a city’s charter-based authority to regulate billboards within its territory takes precedence over general provisions in other statutes.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Sections and Ordinance Validity
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ reliance on inconsistency with the National Building Code and reversed the CA’s decisions insof
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 199172)
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, filed by petitioners (City Engineer and City Administrator of Davao City).
- Relief sought: reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated June 14, 2011 and Amended Decision dated October 13, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 02281-MIN.
- Subject matter of the litigation: constitutionality and validity of Sections 7, 8, 37 and 45 of Davao City Ordinance No. 092, Series of 2000 ("Ordinance No. 092-2000" or "the Ordinance").
Relevant Ordinance Provisions at Issue (Textual Summaries)
- Section 7 (Billboard)
- Prohibits outdoor advertising signs in residential zones as designated in the Official Zoning Map.
- Requires adjacent billboards to maintain 150.00 meters unobstructed line of sight.
- Requires billboards and other self-supporting outdoor signs along highways to be located a minimum of 10.00 meters away from property lines abutting the road right-of-way.
- Section 8 (Regulated Areas)
- Designates bridge approach areas within 200 meters of specified bridges (Generoso Bridge I & II; Bolton Bridge I & II; Lasang Bridge, etc.) as "regulated areas" to preserve the natural view and beauty of the Davao River, Mt. Apo, the Davao City Skyline and the view of Samal Island.
- Section 37 (Fees)
- Prescribes fees for sign permit applications payable to the Office of the City Treasurer.
- Contains a detailed schedule for display surface fees (different rates per type of sign), poster and temporary sign fees, other advertising materials fees, building lines/staking line and grade fixed fee.
- Prescribes structure erection fees, renewal fee provisions (including display surface and structure payment and reference to Section 35), and that sign fees are without prejudice to additional electrical permit fees required by the National Building Code.
- Section 45 (Removal)
- Authorizes the City Engineer or his duly authorized representative, upon recommendation of the Building Official, to remove at the expense of the displaying party:
- Those displayed without permit (but giving the displaying party 60 days from receipt of notice to comply with sign permit requirement).
- Those displayed with a permit but without required permit marking (60-day period to comply).
- Those displayed beyond the expiry date (60-day period to renew, subject to 25% surcharge for delay).
- Those displayed in public places and/or structures as stated in Section 41.
- Billboards and signs installed or constructed in violation of the Ordinance or other applicable statutes and ordinances.
- Authorizes the City Engineer or his duly authorized representative, upon recommendation of the Building Official, to remove at the expense of the displaying party:
Chronology of Key Facts
- August 8, 2000: Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City approved Ordinance No. 092-2000 regulating outdoor advertising materials.
- As early as 2003: City Engineer began sending notices of illegal construction to outdoor advertising businesses, including APM (owned by respondent Alex P. MontaAez), reminding entities to secure sign permits or renewals under Ordinance No. 092-2000.
- February and March 2006: City Engineer issued orders of demolition directing erring outdoor advertising businesses, including APM, to "voluntarily dismantle" billboards violating the Ordinance within three days; otherwise, the city would summarily remove them.
- March 17, 2006: Orders of demolition set summary removal for March 30, 2006 at 8:30 AM.
- March 28, 2006: Respondent MontaAez filed a petition for injunction and declaration of nullity of the Ordinance and the March 17, 2006 order of demolition, with application for writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order — Sp. Civil Case No. 31,346-06 (RTC Branch 14, Davao City).
- April 17, 2006: RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction restraining respondents (OIC Leoncio Evasco, Jr. and City Administrator Wendel Avisado) from implementing the March 17, 2006 demolition order and from demolishing petitioner MontaAez's advertising structures until trial on the merits or further orders.
- October 4 and 10, 2006: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Administrative Orders No. 160 and No. 160-A directing DPWH to inspect and abate billboards posing danger or violating laws; Acting DPWH Secretary issued NBCDO Memorandum Circular No. 3 (October 6, 2006) directing local building officials to cease processing and issuing billboard permits, resulting in suspension of pending permit applications by the city government.
- September 25, 2008: City government issued order of demolition against Prime Advertisements & Signs (Prime) for lack of sign permits and encroachment of road right-of-way; deadline to voluntarily trim structures until October 8, 2008; prompted DABASA to intervene in the RTC case on behalf of its members.
RTC Rulings (Trial Court)
- January 19, 2009 RTC Decision:
- Declared as void and unconstitutional Sections 7, 8 and 41 of City Ordinance No. 092-2000 for being contrary to P.D. 1096 (the National Building Code of the Philippines).
- Made the previously issued injunction permanent insofar as it was based on the aforesaid provisions.
- April 1, 2009 Joint Order (modifying the January 19 decision):
- Granted partial reconsideration and modified the decision to declare as void and unconstitutional Sections 7, 8 and 37 of City Ordinance No. 092-2000 for being contrary to P.D. 1096.
- Declared Section 41 as deleted.
- Declared the earlier injunction permanent.
- Denied respondents' motion for reconsideration.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Amended Decision
- Court of Appeals Decision (June 14, 2011):
- Denied the City Engineer's appeal.
- Affirmed the RTC insofar as it declared Sections 7 and 8 of the Ordinance null and void.
- Declared Section 45 of the Ordinance null and void.
- Reinstated Section 41 of the Ordinance.
- Reasoning relied on City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. and