CA restrains MMDA to its power over billboard ads

MANILA, PHILIPPINES –  The Court of Appeals overturned the rule rendered by Makati City regional trial court in 2013 that restrained the Metro Manila Development Authority from exercising its power to issue clearances and permits for billboards being used as advertising signs along roads in Metro Manila.

In a 21-page decision by CA’s Second Division through Assoc. Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando dismissed the complaints by Summit Publishing Co. Inc., Bigboard Advertising Corp., and Sygoo Enterprises for questioning legality of the memorandum of agreement between the Department of Public Works and Highways and the MMDA regarding the implement provisions of the National Billing Code that regulates the issuances of clearances of billboard permit applicants.

The advertising firms also questioned the validity of the MoA issued by the MMDA regarding the guidelines for the issuances of clearances and billboard permits.

In an order issued on October 25, 2013, the Makati Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Presiding Judge Eugene Paras, issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the MMDA from confiscating, rolling down and demolishing their billboards and other entities of outdoor media advertising as non-compliance with the memorandum circulars and the MoA between DPWH and the MMDA.

The respondent advertising firms filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of injunction against the MMDA after denying their application for billboard clearances due to failure of complying the requirements such as height, size, and setbacks prescribed by the MMDA and DPWH.

The appellate court ruled that Judge Paras committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling against the advertising firms, and would warrant the reversal of its order.

“Public respondent Judge Eugene gravely abused its discretion when it issued the writ of preliminary injunction despite the private respondents’ failure to prove that they have a clear and unmistakable right to the relief sought and that they would suffer great and irreparable injury,” the CA said.

The appellate court said the advertising firms wrongly filed a petition for declaratory relief because they failed to satisfy on of the six elements of the action, particularly “there must have been no breach of the documents in question.”

“While the private respondents argue that their petition for declaratory relief is not about the alleged ‘violation’―its purpose being to question the validity or constitutionality of the assailed MCs―the issue of violation or breach of said MCs is important in determining whether the private respondents availed of the proper remedy,” the CA ruled according in a report by Rey E. Requejo of The Standard.

The CA also said that declaratory relief would no longer be the appropriate remedy if there was already a violation of the questioned MCs.

As the appellate court notes, the firms’ non-compliance with the requirements of the National Building Code and the MMDA MCs can “hardly be disputed.”

In a report by The Standard, the CA noted that Judge Paras “not merely overlooked, but clearly ignored or disregarded” the advertising firms’ admission that they violated MMDA’s billboard rules.