G.R. No. 243931 , July 14, 2021
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Petitioners, vs. Power Ads Intelli-Concepts Advertising and Production Corporation, Respondent.

FACTS

The DPWH and MMDA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on August 31, 2010, deputizing the MMDA to enforce provisions on regulated signs under the National Building Code (PD 1096) within Metro Manila. Consequently, the MMDA issued Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2011, as implementing guidelines. The MMDA later sent a notice to respondent Power Ads Intelli-Concepts Advertising and Production Corporation to demolish its billboard in Makati City for lack of necessary clearance and permit. Power Ads filed a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, assailing the validity of MMDA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2011 and MMDA Regulation No. 04-004, Series of 2004, for being an undue delegation of rule-making power, and seeking to restrain the MMDA from dismantling its billboard. The RTC granted a TRO and later, after hearings, issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on May 11, 2016, enjoining the petitioners from damaging or dismantling Power Ads’ billboards. The RTC denied the petitioners’ motion to dissolve the writ. The Republic, represented by the DPWH and MMDA, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s orders. The Republic then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the Republic, represented by the DPWH and MMDA, to enjoin the dismantling of Power Ads’ billboard.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court held that Power Ads failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right to the injunctive relief. The Court found that Power Ads did not possess a valid building permit for the subject billboard. The building permit it presented (Building Permit No. SB09-01-1271, allegedly issued to Ads and Signs Advertising, Inc. in 2001 and assigned to Power Ads in 2006) was deemed spurious by the testimony of Engr. Ruel B. Almazan from the Office of the Building Official of Makati City, who stated the serial number belonged to a permit issued for a different project and location. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the construction and maintenance of billboards along public roads is not a vested property right but a mere privilege subject to the State’s regulatory power for public safety and welfare, as exercised through PD 1096 (National Building Code) and its implementing rules. The MMDA’s issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2011, was a valid exercise of its mandate under its charter and the MOA with DPWH to enforce national laws and regulations within Metro Manila, particularly those pertaining to building standards and public safety. Since Power Ads lacked the requisite permit and its alleged right was not clear, the issuance of the preliminary injunction was improper. The Court also noted that any injury to Power Ads from the billboard’s removal would be quantifiable and compensable by damages, not irreparable.