G.R. No. 182944 November 9, 2016
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) and METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMDA), Petitioners vs. CITY ADVERTISING VENTURES CORPORATION, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent City Advertising Ventures Corporation (CAVC), an advertising company, lawfully entered into a lease agreement with MERALCO for the use of lampposts to display banners and obtained the necessary sign permits from several local government units in Metro Manila. Following the damage caused by Typhoon Milenyo, the President issued Administrative Order (AO) Nos. 160 and 160-A, directing the DPWH, with MMDA assistance, to inspect, assess, and dismantle billboards deemed hazardous or constituting a public nuisance. Acting under these orders, the DPWH and MMDA commenced operations to dismantle billboards, including CAVC’s structures. CAVC filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violation of AO 160, tort, and injunction, asserting that its billboards were not hazardous and that the dismantling was done without prior notice and hearing. The RTC granted CAVC’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals upheld.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the DPWH and MMDA.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and affirmed the Court of Appeals. For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant must establish a clear and unmistakable right, a material and substantial invasion of that right, and an urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable injury. The Court found that CAVC successfully presented prima facie evidence of its clear legal right derived from its valid lease contract and duly issued permits from the relevant LGUs. The dismantling of its structures by the petitioners, purportedly under AO 160 and 160-A, constituted a material invasion of this right. Critically, the Court held that the petitioners failed to comply with the fundamental due process requirements outlined in the very administrative orders they sought to enforce. AO 160-A mandated a procedure that included an evaluation, assessment, and certification process before abatement. The petitioners did not demonstrate that they conducted the required prior inspection and assessment of CAVC’s specific billboards or issued the corresponding certification declaring them a nuisance or hazard. Their unilateral action, absent this procedural compliance, was arbitrary. Therefore, the RTC correctly exercised its discretion in issuing the injunction to prevent irreparable injury to CAVC’s business rights pending the full trial on the merits. The Court also clarified that Republic Act No. 8975, which prohibits injunctions against national government projects, was inapplicable as the dismantling operation was a regulatory, not an infrastructure, project.