G.R. No. 199172 - Evasco, Jr. vs. Montanez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199172)

Factual Background

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 092-2000 on August 8, 2000 to regulate the construction, repair, erection, installation and maintenance of outdoor advertising materials. The ordinance prescribed standards and restrictions for billboards and signs, including a prohibition of billboards in residential zones, a requirement for adjacent billboards to maintain 150 meters of unobstructed line of sight, and a requirement that billboards and self-supporting outdoor signs along highways be located a minimum of 10 meters from property lines abutting road right-of-way. The ordinance established designated “regulated areas” within 200 meters of specified bridge approaches to preserve views and natural beauty. It set a schedule of sign permit fees under Section 37, including differing rates per square meter and structure fees, and provided in Section 45 that the City Engineer, upon recommendation of the Building Official, could remove illegally displayed signs at the expense of the displaying party but must afford the owner a reasonable period of sixty days from receipt of notice to comply.

Administrative Actions and Demolition Orders

Beginning in 2003, the City Engineer sent notices to outdoor advertising businesses, including APM, to secure or renew sign permits under the ordinance. In February and March 2006 the City Engineer issued orders of demolition directing advertisers, including APM, to voluntarily dismantle billboards violating the ordinance within three days, and scheduled summary removal operations for March 30, 2006. In September 2006, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 160 and AO No. 160-A, and by virtue of NBCDO Memorandum Circular No. 3, local Building Officials were directed to cease processing and issuing billboard permits, and the City suspended pending permit applications. The city again issued demolition directives in 2008, giving Prime Advertisements & Signs until October 8, 2008 to trim or face summary removal.

Petition for Injunction and Preliminary Relief

Faced with pending summary removal, respondent Montanez filed a petition for injunction and declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 092-2000 and the March 17, 2006 demolition order in the Regional Trial Court on March 28, 2006, docketed as Special Civil Case No. 31,346-06. Montanez alleged the ordinance was unconstitutional as overbroad, vague, and inconsistent with P.D. 1096. The RTC granted his application for a writ of preliminary injunction on April 17, 2006, restraining the City Engineer and City Administrator from implementing the March 17, 2006 demolition order and from demolishing Montanez’s advertising structures pending trial or further order.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC rendered judgment on January 19, 2009 declaring Sections 7, 8, and 41 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 void and unconstitutional for being contrary to P.D. 1096, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. After motions for reconsideration, the RTC issued a Joint Order on April 1, 2009 modifying its judgment to declare Sections 7, 8, and 37 void, to delete Section 41, and to maintain the injunction as permanent.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The City Engineer appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, in a Decision dated June 14, 2011, denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC insofar as it declared Sections 7 and 8 null and void, and further declared Section 45 null and void while reinstating Section 41. The Court of Appeals relied on City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. and People v. Fajardo to find the ordinance inconsistent with the National Building Code. It reasoned that Section 7 imposed a larger setback than Section 1002 of the Code; Section 8 attempted to regulate solely on aesthetic grounds, which the court held could not justify police power; and Section 45 expanded the Building Official’s authority beyond the limits prescribed in the National Building Code by authorizing demolition for lack of permit rather than limiting demolition to ruinous or dangerous structures. The Court of Appeals issued an Amended Decision on October 13, 2011 to declare Section 37 null and void and to rectify the dispositive paragraph.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition presented four issues in the precise form advanced by the petitioner: (I) whether Section 7 of the signage ordinance, which the petitioner alleged was lifted from the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code, ran contrary to the National Building Code; (II) whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 8 null and void; (III) whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 37 null and void; and (IV) whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 45 null and void.

Parties' Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners contended that Sections 7, 8, 37, and 45 were consistent with the National Building Code and valid exercises of local police power. They argued that Section 7 addressed signs governed by Chapter 20 of the Code and was not inconsistent with Section 1002; that Section 8 fell within the sangguniang panlungsod’s authority under Section 458(a)(3)(iv) of Republic Act No. 7160 to regulate displays to preserve natural view and beauty; that the Court of Appeals failed to state specific legal findings in declaring Section 37 void, in violation of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution; and that Section 45 properly delegated authority to the City Engineer who, as local building official, was empowered by the Local Government Code and local ordinance to cause removal of violating structures. Respondents countered that Section 7 conflicted with the National Building Code by imposing a ten-meter setback not found in the Code; that Section 8 impermissibly relied on aesthetics to restrict property rights; that Section 37 imposed excessive and confiscatory fees; and that Section 45 unduly delegated power by expanding the Building Official’s demolition authority beyond the National Building Code.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and reversed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Amended Decision. The Court disagreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that Sections 7, 8, 37, and 45 were unconstitutional for inconsistency with the National Building Code. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 092-2000, including the sections at issue, though it based its validation on grounds different from those advanced by the petitioners.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court began with the presumption of constitutionality for local ordinances and the requirement that challengers point to a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution or statute to overcome that presumption. It emphasized that Congress had expressly delegated police power to regulate billboards to the Davao City Sangguniang Panlungsod under the Davao City Charter, Republic Act No. 4354, and that such specific delegation takes precedence over requirements of a law of general application such as P.D. 1096. The Court held that consistency between the ordinance and the National Building Code was therefore irrelevant to the ordinance’s validity; the city could impose stricter limitations within its charter-granted police power. The Court applied the two-part test for valid exercises of police power: a lawful subject addressing public interests

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199172)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Hon. Leoncio Evasco, Jr. in his capacity as OIC City Engineer of Davao City and Hon. Wendel Avisado in his capacity as City Administrator of Davao City filed the petition before the Court under Rule 45 seeking review of the Court of Appeals decision and amended decision.
Alex P. Montanez, doing business under the name and style APM or Ad and Promo Management, was the principal respondent and petitioner before the Regional Trial Court.
Davao Billboard and Signmakers Association (DABASA), Inc. intervened before the RTC on behalf of its members who operated outdoor advertising businesses.
The petition sought reversal of the Court of Appeals’ declaration that Sections 7, 8, 37, and 45 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 were null and void.
The case progressed from the RTC to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court.

Key Factual Allegations

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 092-2000 on August 8, 2000 entitled “An Ordinance Regulating the Construction, Repair, Renovation, Erection, Installation and Maintenance of Outdoor Advertising Materials and For Related Purposes.”
Section 7 prohibited billboards in residential zones, required 150 meters unobstructed line of sight between adjacent billboards, and required billboards along highways to be located at least 10 meters from property lines abutting the road right-of-way.
Section 8 designated bridge approach areas within 200 meters of specified bridges as “regulated areas” to preserve specified scenic views.
Section 37 prescribed fees for sign permits computed per square meter with specified rates for varied sign types and structure erection fees.
Section 45 authorized removal of illegal materials at the expense of the displaying party and provided a reglementary period of sixty days for owners to comply after receipt of notice.
The City Engineer began sending notices of illegal construction to outdoor advertising businesses, including APM, starting in 2003 and issued orders of demolition in February and March 2006 directing voluntary dismantling within three days.
Respondent Montanez filed a petition for injunction and declaration of nullity before the RTC on March 28, 2006 challenging Ordinance No. 092-2000 and the March 17, 2006 order of demolition.
The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on April 17, 2006 restraining the City from demolishing Montanez’s advertising structures pending trial on the merits.
Presidential Administrative Order No. 160 and AO No. 160-A in October 2006 directed DPWH to inspect and abate hazardous billboards, and the NBCDO Memorandum Circular No. 3 directed local building officials to cease processing billboard permit applications, which prompted suspension of pending permits in Davao City.
The City issued a subsequent demolition order dated September 25, 2008 against Prime Advertisements & Signs, which prompted DABASA to intervene in the RTC proceedings.

Statutory Framework

Ordinance No. 092-2000 regulated outdoor advertising within Davao City and contained the operative provisions at issue.
Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code) governed building projections and related matters and included Section 1002 on projection into alleys or streets.
Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) vested local legislative bodies with authority to regulate displays and fix license fees, including Section 458(a)(3)(iv).
The Davao City Charter (Republic Act No. 4354) granted the Sangguniang Panlungsod legislative power to regulate billboards under Section 16(hh).
Administrative Order No. 160, AO No. 160-A, and NBCDO Memorandum Circular No. 3 reflected national directives affecting billboard permit processing after typhoon-related damage in 2006.

Issues

Whether Section 7 of Ordinance No. 092-2000, which prescribes setback and line-of-sight requirements, ran contrary to the National Building Code.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 8 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 null and void.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 37 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 null and void.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 45 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 null and void.

Contentions of Petitioners

The petitioner City Engineer argued that Ordinance No. 092-2000 did not contradict the National Building Code because signage and billboards were specifically governed by Chapter 20 of the Code and thus Section 1002 did not apply directly to signs.
The petitioner a