G.R. No. 170270 - Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170270)

Key Dates

June 28, 1996: Municipal building permit issued to CBS Development Corporation (CDC)
July 5, 1996: HLURB zoning decision classifying property as commercial
1996–2001: Annual zoning certifications and mayor’s permits granted
January 2002: Petitioners’ permit renewals challenged for lack of DAR conversion papers
February–June 2004: Series of administrative denials and physical closures of radio stations
September 14, 2004: RTC Branch 20 denies mandamus petition
October 27, 2005 & May 30, 2007: CA dismisses certiorari and appeal
June 16, 2008: SC consolidates G.R. Nos. 170270 & 179411
April 2, 2009: SC issues decision

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 4 (freedom of speech, of the press)
Local Government Code (granting LGUs authority to issue business permits)
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board charter (zoning approvals)
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (conversion of agricultural lands)
Rules of Court, Rules 58 (injunctions) & 65 (mandamus)
Civil Code Article 32 (liability for impairment of constitutional rights)

Facts

Bombo Radyo Philippines operates DZNC (AM) via Newsounds and Star FM (FM) via CBS on a 1996-built commercial structure owned by affiliate CDC.
From 1996 to 2001, the OMPDC repeatedly certified the property as commercial; mayor’s permits and real-property taxes were paid accordingly.
In January 2002, the City Zoning Administrator-Designate Maximo suddenly demanded proof of DAR conversion or Sangguniang resolution to reclassify the land from agricultural to commercial.
Without zoning clearances, petitioners could not secure 2002 mayor’s permits. Their mandamus petition to compel permit issuance was dismissed as moot in February 2003.
In early 2003, DAR Region II Director Aydinan formally excluded the property from agrarian coverage, waiving conversion requirements. Petitioners renewed their 2003 permits, but City officials later branded the DAR Order spurious.
In January 2004, petitioners again attached the DAR Order to their 2004 permit applications. Despite an initial zonal clearance, City officials refused to issue mayor’s permits and, on February 17 and June 10, 2004, physically closed both stations.
Petitioners sought COMELEC intervention under the Omnibus Election Code; intermittent status-quo orders allowed temporary broadcast until final closures.
On April 15, 2004, petitioners filed a mandamus action with application for injunctive relief, all provisional requests being denied without hearing.
The RTC denied the mandamus petition on September 14, 2004. Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration were also denied.
Petitions for certiorari and appeal in the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP 87815 & CA G.R. SP 88283) were dismissed on October 27, 2005, and May 30, 2007, respectively.

Issues

Did the City’s permit denials and station closures constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and press?
Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by denying provisional injunctive relief without hearing?
Were the permit requirements—specifically, DAR conversion papers—legitimately imposed under local ordinances and zoning law?
Are petitioners entitled to mandamus and mandatory injunction compelling permit issuance and station reopening?
What damages and fees should be awarded for constitutional violations?

Legal Analysis

Prior Restraint and Strict Scrutiny

Government actions that prevent broadcast prior to dissemination are classic prior restraints, subject to a heavy presumption of invalidity under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.
Restrictions on a particular station, closely timed with its election-related commentary against Mayor Dy’s political interests and targeting only Bombo Radyo (with its rival DWDY owned by the Dy family), bore indicia of content-based censorship.
Content-based restraints demand strict scrutiny: the State must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailor measures. Respondents offered none.

Procedural Due Process in Injunctive Relief

Rule 58, Section 5 mandates notice and hearing only upon grant of preliminary injunction; denial need not be heard—but even without formal rule, in a free-speech case, presumption of invalidity of government acts shifts burden to officials to justify closure before denial.
The RTC’s outright and implied denials of petitions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary mandatory injunctions without hearing, despite an unchallenged closure order attached to the petition, constituted grave abuse of discretion.

Validity of Permit Requirements

City Ordinance No. 92-004 (1993) imposes content-neutral business-permit fees and general compliance requirements (e.g., zoning conformity, settled liabilities). It does not require DAR conversion papers or Sangguniang resolutions.
HLURB (July 1996) and OMPDC (1996–2001) consistently certified the property as commercial; petitioners paid taxes accordingly. No evidence of improper reclassification or erroneous certifications was offered by respondents.
Under estoppel principles, a public entity that has repeatedly acknowledged a fact (the property’s commercial zoning) cannot later deny it without plausible proof of irregularity. Respondents presented only bare assertions.
The DAR Region II Order of March 14, 2002 (Aydinan) recognized non-agricultural status and excluded the land from

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170270)

Key Dates

Applicable Law

Facts

Issues

Legal Analysis

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 170270)

Facts of the Case

Procedural History