Newsound Broadcasting Network vs. Dy

Note.
Where the specific intent of the malefactor is without interacting with the regulatory arm of the
determinative of the crime charged such specific intent government. Expression in media such as print or the
must be alleged in the information and proved by the Internet is not
_______________
prosecution. (People vs. Delim, 396 SCRA 386 [2003])
o0o * SECOND DIVISION.
334
G.R. Nos. 170270 & 179411. April 2, 2009.* 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
NEWSOUNDS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC. Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
and CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, burdened by such requirements as congressional
INC., petitioners, vs. HON. CEASAR G. DY, franchises or administrative licenses which bear upon
FELICISIMO G. MEER, BAGNOS MAXIMO, RACMA broadcast media. Broadcast is hampered by its utilization of
FERNANDEZ-GARCIA and THE CITY OF CAUAYAN, the finite resources of the electromagnetic spectrum, which
long ago necessitated government intervention and
respondents.
administration to allow for the orderly allocation of
Constitutional Law; Freedom of Speech, Expression and
bandwidth, with broadcasters agreeing in turn to be
of the Press; Prior restraint refers to official governmental
subjected to regulation.
restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in
Same; Same; Any system of prior restraints of expression
advance of actual publication or dissemination; Not all prior
comes to the Court bearing a heavy presumption against its
restraints on speech are invalid.Without taking into
constitutional validity.That the acts imputed against
account any extenuating circumstances that may favor the
respondents constitute a prior restraint on the freedom of
respondents, we can identify the bare acts of closing the radio
expression of respondents who happen to be members of the
stations or preventing their operations as an act of prior
press is clear enough. There is a long-standing tradition of
restraint against speech, expression or of the press. Prior
special judicial solicitude for free speech, meaning that
restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the
governmental action directed at expression must satisfy a
press or other forms of expression in advance of actual
greater burden of justification than governmental action
publication or dissemination. While any system of prior
directed at most other forms of behavior. We had said in SWS
restraint comes to court bearing a heavy burden against its
v. COMELEC, 357 SCRA 496 (2001): Because of the
constitutionality, not all prior restraints on speech are
preferred status of the constitutional rights of speech,
invalid.
expression, and the press, such a measure is vitiated by a
Same; Same; Expression in media such as print or the
weighty presumption of invalidity. Indeed, any system of
Internet is not burdened by such requirements as
prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a
congressional franchises or administrative licenses which
heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. The
bear upon broadcast media.And there is the fact that the
Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing
mode of expression restrained in these casesbroadcastis
justification for the enforcement of such restraint. There is
not one which petitioners are physically able to accomplish
thus a reversal of the normal presumption of validity that without conducting a hearing for the purpose. The Court is
inheres in every legislation. disinclined to impose a mandatory hearing requirement on
Same; Same; The immediate implication of the applications for injunction even if on its face, injunctive relief
application of the strict scrutiny test is that the burden falls is palpably without merit or impossible to grant. Otherwise,
upon respondents as agents of government to prove that their our trial courts will be forced to hear out the sort of litigation-
actions do not infringe upon petitioners constitutional happy attention-deprived miscreants who abuse the judicial
rights.The Court is of the position that the actions of the processes by filing complaints against real or imaginary
respondents warrant heightened or strict scrutiny from the persons based on trivial or inexistent slights.
Court, the test which we have deemed appropriate in Same; Same; Same; Same; The trial court could not have
assessing content-based restrictions on free speech, as well properly denied provisional relief without any hearing since
as for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting absent any extenuating defense offered by the respondents,
the political process, of laws dealing with the regulation of their actions remained presumptively invalid.At the
speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights moment the petition was filed, there was no basis for the
as expansion from its earlier applications to equal protection. RTC to assume that there was no actual threat hovering over
The immediate implication of the application of the strict petitioners for the closure of their radio stations. The trial
scrutiny test is that the burden falls upon respondents as court should have been cognizant of the constitutional
agents of government to prove that their actions do not implications of the case, and appreciated that the burden
infringe upon petitioners constitutional rights. As content now fell on respondents to defend the constitutionality of
regulation cannot be done in the absence of any compelling their actions. From that mindset, the trial court could not
reason, the burden lies with the government to establish have properly denied provisional relief without any hearing
such compelling reason to infringe the right to free since absent any extenuating defense offered by the
expression.335 respondents, their actions remained presumptively invalid.
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 335 Same; Same; Same; Same; The trial court cannot deny
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy provisional relief to the party alleging a prima facie case
Same; Same; Remedial Law; Injunction; If on the face of alleging government infringement on the right to free
the pleadings, the applicant for preliminary injunction is not expression without hearing from the infringer the cause why
entitled thereto, courts may outrightly deny the motion its actions should be sustained provisionally.The
without conducting a hearing for the purpose.Section 5 of application of the strict scrutiny analysis to petitioners
Rule 58 prescribes a mandatory hearing and prior notice to claims for provisional relief warrants the inevitable
the party or person sought to be enjoined if preliminary conclusion that the trial court cannot deny provisional relief
injunction should be granted. It imposes no similar to the party alleging a prima facie case alleging government
requirement if such provisional relief were to be denied. We infringement on the right to free expression without hearing
in fact agree with the Court of Appeals that if on the face of from the infringer the cause why its actions should be
the pleadings, the applicant for preliminary injunction is not sustained provisionally. Such acts of336
entitled thereto, courts may outrightly deny the motion 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy such purposes intended to promote the general welfare of the
infringement are presumptively unconstitutional, thus inhabitants of the LGU. A municipal or city mayor is likewise
the trial court cannot deny provisional relief outright since authorized under the LGC to issue licenses and permits and
to do so would lead to the sustention of a presumptively suspend or revoke the same for any violation of the
unconstitutional act. It would be necessary for the infringer conditions upon which said licenses or permits had been
to appear in court and somehow rebut against the issued, pursuant to law or ordinance. Generally, LGUs have
presumption of unconstitutionality for the trial court to deny exercised its authority to require permits or licenses from
the injunctive relief sought for in cases where there is business enterprises operating within its territorial
a prima facie case establishing the infringement of the right jurisdiction.337
to free expression. VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 337
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Regional Trial Court Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
should have acted on the motion asking for the issuance of the Same; Same; A municipal license is essentially a
writ before rendering its decision.It may be pointed out governmental restriction upon private rights and is valid only
that the application for preliminary mandatory injunction if based upon an exercise by the municipality of its police or
after petitioners radio stations had been closed was mooted taxing powers.A municipal license is essentially a
by the RTC decision denying the petition for mandamus. governmental restriction upon private rights and is valid
Ideally, the RTC should have acted on the motion asking for only if based upon an exercise by the municipality of its police
the issuance of the writ before rendering its decision. Given or taxing powers. The LGC subjects the power
the circumstances, petitioners were entitled to immediate of sanggunians to enact ordinances requiring licenses or
relief after they filed their motion on 25 June 2004, some two permits within the parameters of Book II of the Code,
and a half months before the RTC decision was promulgated concerning Local Taxation and Fiscal Matters. It also
on 14 September 2004. It is not immediately clear why the necessarily follows that the exercise of this power should also
motion, which had been set for hearing on 2 July 2004, had be consistent with the Constitution as well as the other laws
not been heard by the RTC, so we have no basis for imputing of the land.
bad faith on the part of the trial court in purposely delaying Same; Same; The power of the mayor to issue license and
the hearing to render it moot with the forthcoming rendition permits and suspend or revoke the same must be exercised
of the decision. pursuant to law or ordinance.There are safeguards within
Administrative Law; Local Government Code; The Local the LGC against the arbitrary or unwarranted exercise of the
Government Code (LGC) authorizes local legislative bodies to authority to issue licenses and permits. As earlier noted, the
enact ordinances authorizing the issuance of permits or power of sanggunians to enact ordinances authorizing the
licenses upon such conditions and for such purposes intended issuance of permits or licenses is subject to the provisions of
to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the Local Book Two of the LGC. The power of the mayor to issue
Government Unit (LGU).The LGC authorizes local license and permits and suspend or revoke the same must be
legislative bodies to enact ordinances authorizing the exercised pursuant to law or ordinance.
issuance of permits or licenses upon such conditions and for
Same; Same; Ordinance No. 92-004 does not impose on citizens, and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby
the applicant any burden to establish that the property from thing; and subject to limitations, the doctrine of equitable
where the business was to operate had been duly classified as estoppel may be invoked against public authorities as well as
commercial in nature.Nothing in Ordinance No. 92-004 against private individuals.
requires, as respondents did, that an applicant for a mayors Same; Same; When there is no convincing evidence to
permit submit either an approved land conversion papers prove irregularity or negligence on the part of the government
from the DAR showing that its property was converted from official whose acts are being disowned other than the bare
prime agricultural land to commercial land, or an approved assertion on the part of the State, Court is declined to apply
resolution from the Sangguniang Bayanor Sangguniang State immunity from estoppel.When there is no convincing
Panglungsod authorizing the re-classification of the property evidence to prove irregularity or negligence on the part of the
from agricultural to commercial land. The aforecited government official whose acts are being disowned other
provision which details the procedure for applying for a than the bare assertion on the part of the State, we have
mayors permit does not require any accompanying declined to apply State immunity from estoppel. Herein,
documents to the application, much less those sought from there is absolutely no evidence other than the bare assertions
petitioners by respondents. Moreover, Ordinance No. 92-004 of the respondents that the Cauayan City government had
does not impose on the applicant any burden to establish that previously erred when it certified that the property had been
the property from where the business was to operate had zoned for commercial use. One would assume that if
been duly classified as commercial in nature. respondents were correct, they would have adduced the
Civil Law; Estoppel; Estoppel should not be invoked factual or legal basis for their contention, such as the local
except in a rare and unusual circumstances, and may not be governments land use plan or zoning ordinance that would
invoked where they would operate to defeat the effective indicate that the property was not commercial. Respondents
operation of a policy adopted to338 did not do so, and the absence of any evidence other than
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED bare assertions that the 1996 to 2001 certifications were
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy incorrect lead to the ineluctable conclusion that respondents
protect the public.Indeed, despite the general rule that are estopped from asserting that the previous recognition of
the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistake or errors the property as commercial was wrong.
of its officials or agents, we have also recognized, thus: Same; Damages; The object of Article 32 of the Civil Code
Estoppels against the public are little favored. They should is to put an end to official abuse by plea of the good faith.
not be invoked except in a rare and unusual circumstances, We noted in Lim v. Ponce de Leon, 66 SCRA 299 (1975), that
and may not be invoked where they would operate to defeat [p]ublic officials in the past have abused their powers on the
the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance
public. They must be applied with circumspection and should of their duties [and] the object of [Article 32 of the Civil
be applied only in those special cases where the interests of Code] is to put an end to official abuse by plea of the good
justice clearly require it. Nevertheless, the government must faith. The application of Article 32 not only serves as a
not be allowed to deal dishonorably or capriciously with its measure of pecuniary recovery to mitigate the injury339
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 339 performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy duty resulting from an office, trust or station or unlawfully
to constitutional rights, it likewise serves notice to excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
public officers and employees that any violation on their part office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other
of any persons guarantees under the Bill of Rights will meet plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
with final reckoning. law.We had previously acknowledged that petitioners are
Same; Same; Temperate Damages; Temperate damages entitled to a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction that
avail when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been would have prevented the closure of the radio stations. In
suffered but its amount can not, from the nature the case, be addition, we hold that the writ
proved with certainty.The present prayer for temperate of mandamus lies. Mandamus lies as the proper relief
damages is premised on the existence of pecuniary injury to whenever a public officer unlawfully neglects the
petitioner due to the actions of respondents, the amount of performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
which nevertheless being difficult to prove. Temperate duty resulting from an340
damages avail when the court finds that some pecuniary loss 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
the case, be proved with certainty. The existence of pecuniary office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another
injury at bar cannot be denied. from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
Same; Same; Exemplary Damages; Exemplary damages other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
can be awarded herein, since temperate damages are adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
available.Exemplary damages can be awarded herein, PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decisions of
since temperate damages are available. Public officers who the Court of Appeals.
violate the Constitution they are sworn to uphold embody a The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
poison of wickedness that may not run through the body Mary Marilyn Hechanova-Santos for petitioners.
politic. Respondents, by purposely denying the commercial
The City Legal Officer for respondent City of
character of the property in order to deny petitioners the
Cauayan.
exercise of their constitutional rights and their business,
manifested bad faith in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive and Constante A. Foronda, Jr. for respondents Dy, Meer,
malevolent manner. The amount of exemplary damages need Maximo and Fernandez-Garcia.
not be proved where it is shown that plaintiff is entitled to
temperate damages, and the sought for amount of P1 Million TINGA, J.:
is more than appropriate. We likewise deem the amount of
P1 Million in attorneys fees as suitable under the Whenever the force of government or any of its
circumstances. political subdivisions bears upon to close down a private
Remedial Law; Mandamus; Mandamus lies as the broadcasting station, the issue of free speech
proper relief whenever a public officer unlawfully neglects the infringement cannot be minimized, no matter the legal
justifications offered for the closure. In many respects, I.
the present petitions offer a textbook example of how
the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, Bombo Radyo Philippines (Bombo Radyo) operates
expression and of the press may be unlawfully several radio stations under the AM and FM band
compromised. Tragically, the lower courts involved in throughout the Philippines. These stations are operated
this case failed to recognize or assert the fundamental by corporations organized and incorporated by Bombo
dimensions, and it is our duty to reverse, and to affirm Radyo, particularly petitioners Newsounds
the Constitution and the most sacred rights it Broadcasting Network, Inc. (Newsounds) and
guarantees. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS).
Before us are two petitions for review involving the Among the stations run by Newsounds is Bombo Radyo
same parties, the cases having been consolidated by DZNC Cauayan (DZNC), an AM radio broadcast station
virtue of the Resolution of this Court dated 16 June operating out of Cauayan City, Isabela. CBS, in turn,
2008.1 Both petitions emanated from a petition runs Star FM DWIT Cauayan (Star FM), also
for mandamus2 filed with the Regional Trial Court operating out of Cauayan City, airing on the FM band.
(RTC) of Cauayan City docketed as Special Civil Action The service areas of DZNC and Star FM extend from
No. Br. 20-171, the petition having been dismissed in a the province of Isabela to throughout Region II and the
Decision dated 14 September 2004 by the Cordillera region.6
_______________ In 1996, Newsounds commenced relocation of its
broadcasting stations, management office and
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411) pp. 1351-1352.
2 Id., at pp. 166-190.
transmitters on property located in Minante 2, Cauayan
341 City, Isabela. The property is owned by CBS
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 341 Development Corporation (CDC), an affiliate
_______________
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
Cauayan City RTC, Branch 20.3 Consequently, 3 Id., at pp. 296-302. Decision penned by Judge Henedino P.
petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition Eduarte.
4 Id., at pp. 636-662. Decision penned by Court of Appeals
for certiorari under Rule 65 and an appeal to the RTC
Associate Justice E. Sundiam, concurred in by Associate Justice M.
decision. The appellate court ruled against petitioners Villarama, Jr. and J. Dimaampao.
in both instances. The petition in G.R. No. 170270 5 Decision penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice F.
assails the 27 October 2005 decision of the Court of Lampas-Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices E. Cruz and
N. Pizarro.
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87815,4 while the petition in
6 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 13.
G.R. 179411 assails the 30 May 2007 decision of the 342
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88283.5
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Administrator-Designate Bagnos Maximo (Maximo) to
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy issue a
_______________
corporation under the Bombo Radyo network which
holds title over the properties used by Bombo Radyo 7 Id.
stations throughout the country.7 On 28 June 1996, 8 Id., at p. 90.
CDC was issued by the then municipal government of 9 Id., at p. 91.
10 Id., at p. 92.
Cauayan a building permit authorizing the construction
11 Id., at pp. 93-97.
of a commercial establishment on the property.8 On 5 12 Id., at pp. 98-102.
July 1996, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board 13 Id., at pp. 103-110.
(HLURB) issued a Zoning Decision certifying the 14 Id., at p. 103.
343
property as commercial.9That same day, the Office of
the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 343
(OMPDC) of Cauayan affirmed that the commercial Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
structure to be constructed by CDC conformed to local zoning clearance for the property.15 Maximo, however,
zoning regulations, noting as well that the location is required petitioners to submit either an approved land
classified as a Commercial area.10 Similar certifications conversion papers from the Department of Agrarian
would be issued by OMPDC from 1997 to 2001.11 Reform (DAR) showing that the property was converted
A building was consequently erected on the property, from prime agricultural land to commercial land, or an
and therefrom, DZNC and Star FM operated as radio approved resolution from the Sangguniang
stations. Both stations successfully secured all Bayan or Sangguniang Panglungsod authorizing the
necessary operating documents, including mayors re-classification of the property from agricultural to
permits from 1997 to 2001.12 During that period, CDC commercial land.16 Petitioners had never been required
paid real property taxes on the property based on the to submit such papers before, and from 1996 to 2001,
classification of the land as commercial.13 the OMPDC had consistently certified that the property
All that changed beginning in 2002. On 15 January had been classified as commercial.
of that year, petitioners applied for the renewal of the Due to this refusal by Maximo to issue the zoning
mayors permit. The following day, the City Assessors clearance, petitioners were unable to secure a mayors
Office in Cauayan City noted on CDCs Declaration of permit. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus17 with
Real Property filed for 2002 confirmed that based on the the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City to
existing file, CDCs property was classified as compel the issuance of the 2002 mayors permit. The
commercial.14 On 28 January, representatives of case was raffled to Branch 19 of the Cauayan City RTC.
petitioners formally requested then City Zoning When the RTC of Cauayan denied petitioners
accompanying application for injunctive relief, they conversion of the subject land from agricultural to non-
filed a special civil action for certiorariwith the Court of agricultural use.21
Appeals,18 but this would be dismissed by the appellate On 16 January 2003, petitioners filed their
court due to the availability of other speedy remedies applications for renewal of mayors permit for the year
with the trial court. In February of 2003, the RTC 2003, attaching therein the DAR Order. Their
dismissed the mandamus action for being moot and application was approved. However, on 4 March 2003,
academic.19 respondent Felicisimo Meer, Acting City Administrator
In the meantime, petitioners sought to obtain from of Cauayan City, wrote to petitioners claiming that the
the DAR Region II Office a formal recognition of the DAR Order was spurious or void, as the Regional Center
conversion of the CDC property from agricultural to for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation
commercial. The matter was docketed as Adm. Case No. (RCLUPPI) supposedly reported that it did not have
A-0200A-07B-002. Then DAR Region II Director Abrino any record of the DAR Order. A series of
L. Aydinan (Director Aydinan) granted the application correspondences followed wherein petitioners defended
and issued an Order that stated that the authenticity of the DAR Order and the commercial
_______________ character of the property, while respondent Meer
demanded independent proof showing the authenticity
15 Id., at p. 111.
16 Id., at pp. 18-19. of the Aydinan Order. It does not appear though that
17 Supra note 2. Docketed as Spl. Civil Action No. 19-124 with the any action was taken against petitioners by
Regional Trial Court of Cauayan City, Branch 19. respondents in 2003, and petitioners that year paid
18 See Rollo (G.R. No. 170270), p. 21; Docketed as CA-G.R. No.
70361.
realty taxes on the property based on the classification
19 Rollo, p. 22. that said property is commercial.22
344 The controversy continued into 2004. In January of
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED that year, petitioners filed their respective applications
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy for their 2004 mayors permit, again with the DAR
there remains no doubt on the part of this Office of the Order attached to the same. A zonal clearance was
non-agricultural classification of subject land before the issued in favor of petitioners. Yet in a letter dated 13
effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as January 2004, respondent Meer claimed that no record
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of existed of DAR Adm. Case No. A-0200A-07B-002 with
1988.20 Consequently, the DAR Region II Office ordered the Office of the Regional Director of the
_______________
the formal exclusion of the property from the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and the 20 Id., at p. 111.
waiver of any requirement for formal clearance of the 21 Id., at p. 115.
22 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), pp. 21-22. Dy issued a Closure Order dated 24 March 2004, stating
345
therein that since petitioners did not have the requisite
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 345 permits before 17 February 2004, the status quo meant
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy that the stations were not in fact allowed to
DAR or with the RCLUPPI.23 As a result, petitioners operate.25 Through the intervention of the COMELEC,
were informed that there was no basis for the issuance petitioners were able to resume operation of the stations
in their favor of the requisite zoning clearance needed on 30 March 2004. On 9 May 2004, or two days before
for the issuance of the mayors permit.24 the general elections of that year, the COMELEC
Another series of correspondences ensued between denied the
Meer and the station manager of DZNC, Charmy _______________
Sabigan (Sabigan). Sabigan reiterated the authenticity
of the DAR Order and the commercial character of the 23 Rollo, p. 171.
24 Id.
property, while Meer twice extended the period for 25 Id., at p. 198.
application of the mayors permit, while reminding 346
them of the need to submit the certifications from the 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
DAR or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan that the Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
property had been duly converted for commercial use. petition filed by petitioners and set aside the status
The deadline for application for the mayors permit quo order.26However, this Resolution was reconsidered
lapsed on 15 February 2004, despite petitioners plea for just 9 days later, or on 16 May 2004, and the COMELEC
another extension. On 17 February 2004, respondents directed the maintenance of the status quo until 9 June
Meer and Racma Fernandez-Garcia, City Legal Officer 2004, the date of the end of the election period.
of Cauayan City, arrived at the property and closed the Petitioners were thus able to continue operations
radio stations. Petitioners proceeded to file a petition until 10 June 2004, the day when respondents yet again
with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking closed the radio stations. This closure proved to be more
enforcement of the Omnibus Election Code, which permanent.
prohibited the closure of radio stations during the then- By this time, the instant legal battle over the sought-
pendency of the election period. On 23 March 2004, the after mayors permits had already been well under way.
COMELEC issued an order directing the parties to On 15 April 2004, petitioners filed a petition
maintain the status prevailing before 17 February for mandamus, docketed as SCA No. 20-171, with the
2004, thus allowing the operation of the radio stations, RTC of Cauayan City, Branch 20. The petition was
and petitioners proceeded to operate the stations the accompanied by an application for the issuance of
following day. Within hours, respondent Mayor Ceasar temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
prohibitory injunction, both provisional reliefs being conclusions with respect to their right to secure the
denied by the RTC through an Order dated 20 April mayors permit. This motion was denied in an Order
2004. Respondents duly filed an Answer with dated 1 December 2004.
Counterclaims on 3 May 2004. Due to the Petitioners initiated two separate actions with the
aforementioned closure of the radio stations on 10 June Court of Appeals following the rulings of the RTC. On
2004, petitioners filed with the RTC a Motion for the 13 December 2004, they filed a Petition
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction for Certiorari under Rule 65, docketed as CA-G.R. No.
dated 15 June 2004, praying that said writ be issued to 87815, raffled to the Fourteenth Division.29 This petition
allow petitioners to resume operations of the radio imputed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
stations. No hearing would be conducted on the motion, RTC for denying their application for preliminary
nor would it be formally ruled on by the RTC. mandatory injunction. On the same day, petitioners
On 14 September 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision also filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, this time in
denying the petition for mandamus.27 The RTC upheld connection with the denial of their petition
all the arguments of the respondents, including their for mandamus. This appeal was docketed as CA-G.R.
right to deny the sought after mayors permit unless SP No. 88283 and raffled to the Eleventh Division.
they were duly satisfied that the subject property has Petitioners lost both of their cases with the Court of
been classified as commercial in nature. The Decision Appeals. On 27 October 2005, the Court of Appeals in
made no reference to the applica- CA-G.R. No. 87815 dismissed the Petition
_______________ for Certiorari, ruling that the RTC did not commit any
grave abuse of discretion in impliedly denying the
26 Id., at pp. 203-208. Resolution signed by Chairman Benjamin S.
Abalos, Sr., and Commissioners Rufino S.B. Javier, Mehol K. Sadain, application for preliminary mandatory injunction. On
Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., and Virgilio O. 30 May 2007, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
Garcillano. Commissioner Manuel A. Barcelona dissented. 88283 denied the appeal by certiorari, affirming the
27 Id., at pp. 339-348.
right of the respondents to deny petitioners their
347
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 347 mayors permits. On both occasions, petitioners filed
with this Court respective petitions for review under
Rule 45the instant petitions, now docketed as G.R.
tion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
Nos. 170270 and 179411.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,28 citing
On 23 January 2006, the Court in G.R. No. 170270
the trial courts failure to hear and act on the motion for
issued a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining
preliminary mandatory injunction as a violation of the
respondents from implementing the closure order dated
right to due process, and disputing the RTCs
March 24, 2005, or otherwise interfering with the Bombo Radyo was aggressive in exposing the
operations of Bombo Radyo widespread election irregularities in Isabela that
_______________ appear to have favored respondent Dy and other
members of the Dy political dynasty.34Respondent
28 Id., at pp. 349-379.
29 Id., at pp. 386-449. Ceasar Dy is the brother of Faustino Dy, Jr., governor
348 of Isabela from 2001 until he was defeated in his re-
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED election bid in 2004 by Grace Padaca, a former assistant
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy station manager at petitioners
_______________
DZNC Cauayan (NBN) and STAR FM DWIT Cauayan
(CBS) in Cauayan City until final orders from this 30 Rollo (G.R. No. 170270), pp. 677-678.
Court.30 On 21 January 2008, the Court resolved to 31 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 1198.
consolidate G.R. No. 170270 with G.R. No. 179411, 32 Article 3, Sec. 4.
33 Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, 137 Phil. 471, 492; 27
which had been initially dismissed outright but was
SCRA 835, 856-857 (1969).
reinstated on even date.31 34 Rollo (G.R. No. 170270), p. 27.
Certiorari lies in both instances. 349
II. VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 349
The fundamental constitutional principle that Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
informs our analysis of both petitions is the freedom of own DZNC Bombo Radyo.35 A rival AM radio station in
speech, of expression or the press.32 Free speech and free Cauayan City, DWDY, is owned and operated by the Dy
press may be identified with the liberty to discuss family.36 Petitioners likewise direct our attention to a 20
publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest February 2004 article printed in the Philippine Daily
without censorship and punishment. There is to be no Inquirer where Dy is quoted as intending to file
previous restraint on the communication of views or disenfranchisement proceedings against DZNC-AM.37
subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution The partisan component of this dispute will no doubt
for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt sway many observers towards one opinion or the other,
proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger but not us. The comfort offered by the constitutional
of substantive evil that Congress has a right to shelter of free expression is neutral as to personality,
prevent.33 affinity, ideology and popularity. The judges tasked to
Petitioners have taken great pains to depict their enforce constitutional order are expected to rule
struggle as a textbook case of denial of the right to free accordingly from the comfort of that neutral shelter.
speech and of the press. In their tale, there is Still, it cannot be denied that our Constitution has a
undeniable political color. They admit that in 2001, systemic bias towards free speech. The absolutist tenor
of Section 4, Article III testifies to that fact. The Without taking into account any extenuating
individual discomforts to particular people or circumstances that may favor the respondents, we can
enterprises engendered by the exercise of the right, for identify the bare acts of closing the radio stations or
which at times remedies may be due, do not diminish preventing their operations as an act of prior restraint
the indispensable nature of free expression to the against speech, expression or of the press. Prior
democratic way of life. restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on
The following undisputed facts bring the issue of free the press or other forms of expression in advance of
expression to fore. Petitioners are authorized by law to actual publication or dissemination.38 While any system
operate radio stations in Cauayan City, and had been of prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy burden
doing so for some years undisturbed by local against its constitutionality,39 not all prior restraints on
authorities. Beginning in 2002, respondents in their speech are invalid.40
official capacities have taken actions, whatever may be Nonetheless, there are added legal complexities to
the motive, that have impeded the ability of petitioners these cases which may not be necessarily accessible to
to freely broadcast, if not broadcast at all. These actions the layperson. The actions taken by respondents are
have ranged from withholding permits to operate to the colored with legal authority, under the powers of local
physical closure of those stations under color of legal governments vested in the Local Government Code
authority. While once petitioners were able to broadcast (LGC), or more generally, the police powers of the State.
_______________ We do not doubt that Local Government Units (LGU)
are capacitated to enact ordinances requiring the
35 See TJ Burgonio, Isabela gov who ended a dynasty wins RM
prize, Philippine Daily Inquirer (1 August 2008), at http://opinion. obtention of licenses or permits by businesses, a term
inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20080801- defined elsewhere in the LGC as trade or commercial
151950/Isabela-gov-who-ended-a-dynasty-wins-RM-prize. activity regularly engaged in as a means of livelihood or
36 Rollo (G.R. No. 170270), p. 17.
37 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 142.
with a view to profit.
350 And there is the fact that the mode of expression
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED restrained in these casesbroadcastis not one which
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy petitioners are physically able to accomplish without
freely, the weight of government has since bore down interacting with the regulatory arm of the government.
upon them to silence their voices on the airwaves. An Expression in media such
_______________
elementary school child with a basic understanding of
civics lessons will recognize that free speech animates 38 Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008, 545
these cases. SCRA 441, 491.
39 Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 409
special judicial solicitude for free speech, meaning that
Phil. 571, 585; 357 SCRA 496, 501 (2001); citing New York Times v.
governmental action directed at expression must satisfy
United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714, 29 L. Ed. 2d 822, 824 (1971).
a greater burden of justification than governmental
40 Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168335, 15 February 2008, 545
SCRA 441, 492. action directed at most other forms of behavior.41 We
351 had said in SWS v. COMELEC: Because of the
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 351 preferred status of the constitutional rights of speech,
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy expression, and the press, such a measure is vitiated by
as print or the Internet is not burdened by such a weighty presumption of invalidity. Indeed, any
requirements as congressional franchises or system of prior restraints of expression comes to this
administrative licenses which bear upon broadcast Court bearing a heavy presumption against its
media. Broadcast is hampered by its utilization of the constitutional validity. The Government
finite resources of the electromagnetic spectrum, which _______________
long ago necessitated government intervention and
41 Gunther, et al., Constitutional Law (14th ed., 2001), at p. 964.
administration to allow for the orderly allocation of 352
bandwidth, with broadcasters agreeing in turn to be 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
subjected to regulation. There is no issue herein that Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
calls into question the authority under law of
thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for
petitioners to engage in broadcasting activity, yet these
the enforcement of such restraint. There is thus a
circumstances are well worth pointing out if only to
reversal of the normal presumption of validity that
provide the correct perspective that broadcast media
inheres in every legislation.42
enjoys a somewhat lesser degree of constitutional
At the same time, jurisprudence distinguishes
protection than print media or the Internet.
between a content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely
It emerges then that there exists tension between
concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that
petitioners right to free expression, and respondents
merely controls the time, place or manner, and under
authority by law to regulate local enterprises. What are
well defined standards; and a content-based restraint
the rules of adjudication that govern the judicial
or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on the subject
resolution of this controversy?
matter of the utterance or speech.43 Content-based laws
B.
are generally treated as more suspect than content-
That the acts imputed against respondents
neutral laws because of judicial concern with
constitute a prior restraint on the freedom of expression
discrimination in the regulation of
of respondents who happen to be members of the press
expression.44 Content-neutral regulations of speech or of
is clear enough. There is a long-standing tradition of
conduct that may amount to speech, are subject to expression and petition the government for redress of
lesser but still heightened scrutiny.45 grievances.
Ostensibly, the act of an LGU requiring a business of 6.2. Newsounds only rival AM station in Cauayan
proof that the property from which it operates has been and the rest of Isabela, DWDY, is owned and operated
by the family of respondent Dy.46
zoned for commercial use can be argued, when applied
xxxx
to a radio station, as content-neutral since such a
35. Respondents closure of petitioners radio stations is
regulation would presumably apply to any other radio clearly tainted with ill motives.
station or business enterprise within the LGU. 35.1. It must be pointed out that in the 2001
However, the circumstances of this case dictate that elections, Bombo Radyo was aggressive in exposing the
we view the action of the respondents as a content- widespread election irregularities in Isabela that
based restraint. In their petition for mandamus filed appear to have favored respondent Dy and other
with the RTC, petitioners make the following relevant members of the Dy political dynasty. It is just too
allegations: coincidental that it was only after the 2001 elections
6.1. With specific reference to DZNC, (i.e., 2002) that the Mayors Office started questioning
Newsounds, to this date, is engaged in discussing petitioners applications for renewal of their mayors
public issues that include, among others, the conduct permits.
of public officials that are detrimental to the 35.2. In an article found in the Philippine Daily
constituents of Isabela, including Cauayan City. In inquirer dated 20 February 2004, respondent Dy was
view of its wide coverage, DZNC has been a primary quoted as saying that he will disenfranchise the radio
medium station. Such statement manifests and confirms that
_______________ respondents denial of petitioners renewal applications
on the ground that the Property is commercial is
42 SWS v. Commission on Elections, supra note 39. merely a pretext and that their real agenda is to
43 Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008, 545 SCRA
441, 493.
remove petitioners from Cauayan City and suppress
44 Gunther, et al., supra note 44. the latters voice. This is a blatant violation of the
45 Id., at p. 957. petitioners constitutional right to press freedom.
353 A copy of the newspaper article is attached hereto
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 353 as Annex JJ.
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy 35.3. The timing of respondents closure of
for the exercise of the people of Isabela of their petitioners radio stations is also very telling. The
constitutional right to free speech. Corollarily, DZNC closure comes at a most critical time when the people
has always been at the forefront of the struggle to are set to exercise their right of suffrage. Such timing
maintain and uphold freedom of the press, and the emphasizes the ill motives of respondents.47
peoples corollary right to freedom of speech, _______________
46 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 170. Padaca, was mounting a credible and ultimately
47 Id., at pp. 178-179.
successful challenge against the incumbent Isabela
354
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED governor, who happened to be the brother of respondent
Dy. It also bears notice that the requirements required
of petitioners by the Cauayan City government are
In their Answer with Comment48 to the petition
frankly beyond the pale and not conventionally adopted
for mandamus, respondents admitted that petitioners
by local governments throughout the Philippines.
had made such exposes during the 2001 elections, _______________
though they denied the nature and truthfulness of such
reports.49 They conceded that the Philippine Daily 48 Id., at pp. 204-239.
49 Id., at p. 207.
Inquirer story reported that Dy said he planned to file
50 Id.
disenfranchisement proceedings against [DZNC]- 51 Id., at p. 205.
AM.50 While respondents assert that there are other 52 Id., at p. 26.
AM radio stations in Isabela, they do not specifically 355
refute that station DWDY was owned by the Dy family, VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 355
or that DZNC and DWDY are the two only stations that Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
operate out of Cauayan.51 All those circumstances lead us to believe that the
Prior to 2002, petitioners had not been frustrated in steps employed by respondents to ultimately shut down
securing the various local government requirements for petitioners radio station were ultimately content-
the operation of their stations. It was only in the based. The United States Supreme Court generally
beginning of 2002, after the election of respondent treats restriction of the expression of a particular point
Ceasar Dy as mayor of Cauayan, that the local of view as the paradigm violation of the First
government started to impose these new requirements Amendment.53The facts confronting us now could have
substantiating the conversion of CDCs property for easily been drawn up by a constitutional law professor
commercial use. Petitioners admit that during the 2001 eager to provide a plain example on how free speech
elections, Bombo Radyo was aggressive in exposing the may be violated.
widespread election irregularities in Isabela that The Court is of the position that the actions of the
appear to have favored Respondent Dy and other respondents warrant heightened or strict scrutiny from
members of the Dy political dynasty.52 Respondents the Court, the test which we have deemed appropriate
efforts to close petitioners radio station clearly in assessing content-based restrictions on free speech,
intensified immediately before the May 2004 elections, as well as for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or
where a former employee of DZNC Bombo Radyo, Grace restricting the political process, of laws dealing with the
regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other now operating by virtue of the order of the
fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier COMELEC.56 Petitioners filed a motion for
applications to equal protection.54 The immediate reconsideration, which the RTC denied on 13 May 2004.
implication of the application of the strict scrutiny test The refusal of the RTC to grant provisional relief gave
is that the burden falls upon respondents as agents of way to the closure of petitioners radio stations on 10
government to prove that their actions do not infringe June 2004, leading for them to file a motion for the
upon petitioners constitutional rights. As content issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
regulation cannot be done in the absence of any on 25 June 2004. This motion had not yet been acted
compelling reason,55 the burden lies with the upon when on 14 September 2004, the RTC
government to establish such compelling reason to promulgated its decision denying the petition
infringe the right to free expression. for mandamus.
III. Among the arguments raised by petitioners in their
We first turn to whether the implicit denial of the motion for reconsideration before the RTC was against
application for preliminary mandatory injunction by the implied denial of their motion for the issuance of a
the RTC was in fact attended with grave abuse of writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, claiming in
discretion. This is the main issue raised in G.R. No. particular that such implicit denial violated petitioners
170270. right to due process of law since no hearing was
_______________ conducted thereupon. However, when the RTC denied
the motion for reconsideration in its 1 December 2004
53 Gunther et al., supra note 44.
54 See White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, Order, it noted that its implied denial of the motion for
20 January 2009, 576 SCRA 416. a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was not a
55 Osmea v. Commission on Elections, 351 Phil. 692, 711; 288 ground for reconsideration of its decision.
SCRA 447, 470 (1998).
Petitioners maintain that the RTC acted with grave
356
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED abuse of discretion when it impliedly denied their
motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction without any hearing. The Court
To recall, the RTC on 20 April 2004 issued an order
of Appeals pointed out that under Section 5 of Rule 58
denying the prayer for the issuance of a writ of
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the granting
preliminary injunction, claiming that [t]here is
of a writ of preliminary injunction that mandatorily
insufficiency of allegation [t]here is no certainty that
requires a hearing. The interpretation of the appellate
after the election period, the respondents will interfere
court is supported by the language of the rule itself:
with the operation of the radio stations x x x which are
Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without against real or imaginary persons based on trivial or
notice; exception.No preliminary injunction shall be inexistent slights.
granted without We do not wish though to dwell on this point, as there
_______________
is an even more fundamental point to consider. Even as
56Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 191. we decline to agree to a general that the denial of an
357 application for injunction requires a prior hearing, we
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 357 believe in this case that petitioners deserved not only a
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy hearing on their motion, but the very writ itself.
hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be As earlier stated, the burden of presuming valid the
enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or actions of respondents sought, fraught as they were
by the verified application that great or irreparable injury with alleged violations on petitioners constitutional
would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard right to expression, fell on respondents themselves.
on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary
This was true from the very moment the petition
injunction was made, may issue ex parte a temporary
for mandamus was filed. It was evident
restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty
_______________
(20) days from service on the party or person sought to be
enjoined, except as herein provided. x x x 57 Rollo (G.R. No. 170270), p. 120.
Section 5 of Rule 58 prescribes a mandatory hearing 358
and prior notice to the party or person sought to be 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
enjoined if preliminary injunction should be Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
granted. It imposes no similar requirement if such from the petition that the threat against petitioners was
provisional relief were to be denied. We in fact agree not wildly imagined, or speculative in any
with the Court of Appeals that if on the face of the way. Attached to the petition itself was the
pleadings, the applicant for preliminary injunction is Closure Order dated 13 February 2004 issued by
not entitled thereto, courts may outrightly deny the respondents against petitioners.58 There was no
motion without conducting a hearing for the better evidence to substantiate the claim that
purpose.57 The Court is disinclined to impose a petitioners faced the live threat of their
mandatory hearing requirement on applications for closure. Moreover, respondents in their Answer
injunction even if on its face, injunctive relief is admitted to issuing the Closure Order.59
palpably without merit or impossible to grant. At the moment the petition was filed, there was no
Otherwise, our trial courts will be forced to hear out the basis for the RTC to assume that there was no actual
sort of litigation-happy attention-deprived miscreants threat hovering over petitioners for the closure of their
who abuse the judicial processes by filing complaints radio stations. The trial court should have been
cognizant of the constitutional implications of the case, rights were not merely under threat of
and appreciated that the burden now fell on infringement, they were already definitely
respondents to defend the constitutionality of their infringed.
actions. From that mindset, the trial court could not The application of the strict scrutiny analysis to
have properly denied provisional relief without any petitioners claims for provisional relief warrants the
hearing since absent any extenuating defense offered by inevitable conclusion that the trial court cannot deny
the respondents, their actions remained presumptively provisional relief to the party alleging a prima facie case
invalid. alleging government infringement on the right to free
Our conclusions hold true not only with respect to the expression without hearing from the infringer the cause
implied denial of the motion for preliminary injunction, why its actions should be sustained provisionally. Such
but also with the initial denial without hearing on 20 acts of infringement are presumptively
April 2004 of the prayer for a writ of preliminary unconstitutional, thus the trial court cannot deny
injunction and temporary restraining order. provisional relief outright since to do so would lead to
Admittedly, such initial denial is not the object of these the sustention of a presumptively unconstitutional act.
petitions, yet we can observe that such action of the It would be necessary for the infringer to appear in
RTC was attended with grave abuse of discretion, the court and somehow rebut against the presumption of
trial court betraying ignorance of the constitutional unconstitutionality for the trial court to deny the
implications of the petition. With respect to the injunctive relief sought for in cases where there is
subsequent implied denial of the writ of preliminary a prima facie case establishing the infringement of the
mandatory injunction, the grave abuse of discretion on right to free expression.
the part of the trial court is even more glaring. At that Those above-stated guidelines, which pertain most
point, petitioners radio stations were not merely particularly to the ex parte denial of provisional relief in
under threat of closure, they were already free expression cases, stand independently of the
actually closed. Petitioners constitutional established requisites for a party to be entitled to such
_______________ provisional reliefs. With respect to writs of preliminary
injunction, the requisite grounds are spelled out in
58 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 210.
59 Id., at p. 247. Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.
359 It may be pointed out that the application for
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 359 preliminary mandatory injunction after petitioners
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy radio stations had been closed was mooted by the RTC
decision denying the petition for mandamus. Ideally,
the RTC should have acted on the motion asking for the
issuance of the writ before rendering its decision. Given while respondents claiming that the property remains
the circumstances, petitioners were entitled to agricultural in character. This perspective, to our mind,
immediate relief after they filed their motion on 25 June is highly myopic and implicitly assumes that the
2004, some two and a half months before the RTC requirements imposed on petitioners by the Cauayan
decision was promulgated on 14 September 2004. It is City government are in fact legitimate.
not immediately clear why the motion, which had been The LGC authorizes local legislative bodies to enact
set for hearing on 2 July 2004, had not been heard by ordinances authorizing the issuance of permits or
the RTC, so we have no basis for imputing bad faith on licenses upon such conditions and for such purposes
the part of the trial court in intended to promote the general welfare of the
360 inhabitants of the LGU.60 A municipal or city mayor is
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED likewise authorized under the LGC to issue licenses
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy and permits and suspend or revoke the same for any
purposely delaying the hearing to render it moot with violation of the conditions upon which said licenses or
the forthcoming rendition of the decision. Nonetheless, permits had been issued, pursuant to law or
given the gravity of the constitutional question ordinance.61 Generally, LGUs have exercised its
involved, and the fact that the radio stations had authority to require per-
already been actually closed, a prudent judge would _______________
have strived to hear the motion and act on it accordingly
60 Local Government Code (1991), Secs. 447(3) & 458(3).
independent of the ultimate decision. 61 See note 43.
Since the prayer for the issuance of a writ of 361
mandatory injunction in this case was impliedly denied VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 361
through the decision denying the main action, we have Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
no choice but to presume that the prayer for injunction mits or licenses from business enterprises operating
was denied on the same bases as the denial of the within its territorial jurisdiction.
petition for mandamus itself. The time has come for us A municipal license is essentially a governmental
to review such denial, the main issue raised in G.R. No. restriction upon private rights and is valid only if based
179411. upon an exercise by the municipality of its police or
IV. taxing powers.62 The LGC subjects the power
The perspective from which the parties present the of sanggunians to enact ordinances requiring licenses
matter for resolution in G.R. No. 179411 is whether the or permits within the parameters of Book II of the Code,
property of CDC had been duly converted or classified concerning Local Taxation and Fiscal Matters. It also
for commercial use, with petitioners arguing that it was necessarily follows that the exercise of this power
should also be consistent with the Constitution as well Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
as the other laws of the land. In the case of Cauayan City, the authority to require
Nothing in national law exempts media entities that a mayors permit was enacted through Ordinance No.
also operate as businesses such as newspapers and 92-004, enacted in 1993 when Cauayan was still a
broadcast stations such as petitioners from being municipality. We quote therefrom:
required to obtain permits or licenses from local Sec. 3A.01. Imposition of Fee.There shall be imposed
governments in the same manner as other businesses and collected an annual fee at the rates provided hereunder
are expected to do so. While this may lead to some for the issuance of Mayors Permit to every person that shall
concern that requiring media entities to secure licenses conduct business, trade or activity within the Municipality of
or permits from local government units infringes on the Cauayan.
The permit fee is payable for every separate or distinct
constitutional right to a free press, we see no concern so
establishment or place where the business trade or activity
long as such requirement has been duly ordained
is conducted. One line of business or activity does not become
through local legislation and content-neutral in exempt by being conducted with some other business or
character, i.e., applicable to all other similarly situated activity for which the permit fee has been paid.
businesses. x x x x
Indeed, there are safeguards within the LGC against Sec. 3A.03. Application for Mayors Permit False
the arbitrary or unwarranted exercise of the authority Statements.A written application for a permit to operate a
to issue licenses and permits. As earlier noted, the business shall be filed with the Office of the Mayor in three
power of sanggunians to enact ordinances authorizing copies. The application form shall set forth the name and
the issuance of permits or licenses is subject to the address of the applicant, the description or style of business,
provisions of Book Two of the LGC. The power of the the place where the business shall be conducted and such
other pertinent information or data as may be required.
mayor to issue license and permits and suspend or
Upon submission of the application, it shall be the duty of
revoke the same must be exercised pursuant to law or
the proper authorities to verify if the other Municipal
ordinance.63 requirements regarding the operation of the business or
_______________
activity are complied with. The permit to operate shall be
62 Angeles, Restatement of the Law on Local Governments (2005 issued only upon such compliance and after the payment of
ed.), at p. 124; citing 9 McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, the corresponding taxes and fees as required by this revenue
26.01.10 (3rd ed.); In re Wan Yin, 22 F 701; Father Basils Lodge, Inc. code and other municipal tax ordinances.
v. Chicago, 393 Ill 246, 65 NE2d 805. Any false statement deliberately made by the applicant
63 See note 43. shall constitute sufficient ground for denying or revoking the
362
permit issued by the Mayor, and the applicant or licensee
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
may further be prosecuted in accordance with the penalties of laws especially frown upon violations of the
provided in this article. guarantee to free speech, expression and a free press,
A Mayors Permit shall be refused to any person: vital as these are to our democratic regime.
(1) Whose business establishment or undertaking does not Nothing in Ordinance No. 92-004 requires, as
conform with zoning regulations and safety, health and other
respondents did, that an applicant for a mayors permit
requirements of the Municipality; (2) that has an unsettled
submit either an approved land conversion papers from
tax obligations, debt or other liability to the Municipal
Government; and (3)363 the DAR showing that its property was converted from
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 363 prime agricultural land to commercial land, or an
approved resolution from the Sangguniang
Bayan or Sangguniang Panglungsod authorizing the
that is disqualified under any provision of law or ordinance
to establish, or operate the business for which a permit is re-classification of the property from agricultural to
being applied.
64 commercial land.65 The aforecited provision which
Petitioners do not challenge the validity of Ordinance details the procedure for applying for a mayors permit
No. 92-004. On its face, it operates as a content-neutral does not require any accompanying documents to the
regulation that does not impose any special impediment application, much less those
_______________
to the exercise of the constitutional right to free
expression. Still, it can be seen how under the veil of 64 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), pp. 300-301.
Ordinance No. 92-004 or any other similarly oriented 65 Supra note 16.
ordinance, a local government unit such as Cauayan 364
City may attempt to infringe on such constitutional 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
rights. Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
A local government can quite easily cite any of its sought from petitioners by respondents. Moreover,
regulatory ordinances to impose retaliatory measures Ordinance No. 92-004 does not impose on the applicant
against persons who run afoul it, such as a business any burden to establish that the property from where
owned by an opponent of the government, or a the business was to operate had been duly classified as
crusading newspaper or radio station. While the ill- commercial in nature.
motives of a local government do not exempt the injured According to respondents, it was only in 2002 that
regulatory subject from complying with the municipal the more diligent Respondent Bagnos Maximo
laws, such laws themselves do not insulate those ill- discovered the mistake committed by his predecessor
motives if they are attended with infringements of in the issuance of the Petitioners Zoning Certifications
constitutional rights, such as due process, equal from 1996 to 2001.66 Assuming that were true, it would
protection and the right to free expression. Our system perhaps have given cause for the local government in
requiring the business so affected to submit additional commercial. Or, that between 1996 to 2002, the
requirements not required of other applicants related to property somehow was reclassified from commercial to
the classification of its property. Still, there are agricultural. There is neither evidence nor suggestion
multitude of circumstances that belie the claim that the from respondents that the latter circumstance obtained.
previous certifications issued by the OMPDC as to the Petitioners are also armed with six certifications
commercial character of CDCs property was incorrect. issued by the OMPDC for the consecutive years 1996 to
On 5 July 1996, the HLURB issued a Zoning Decision 2001, all of which certify that the property is classified
that classified the property as Commercial.67 The as commercial area in conformity with the Land Use
HLURB is vested with authority to review, evaluate Plan of this municipality and does not in any way
and approve or disapprove the zoning component of violate the existing Zoning Ordinance of Cauayan,
subdivisions, condominiums or estate development Isabela.70 In addition, from 1997 to 2004, petitioners
projects including industrial estates, of both the public paid real property taxes on the property based on the
and private sectors.68 In exercising such power, the classification of the property as commercial, without
HLURB is required to use Development Plans and any objections raised by respondents.71 These facts
Zoning Ordinances of local governments herein.69 There again tend to confirm that contrary to respondents
is no reason to doubt that when the HLURB assertions, the property has long been classified as
acknowledged in 1996 that the property in question was commercial.
commercial, it had consulted the development plans Petitioners persuasively argue that this consistent
and zoning ordinances of Cauayan. recognition by the local government of Cauayan of the
Assuming that respondents are correct that the commercial character of the property constitutes
property was belatedly revealed as non-commercial, it estoppel against respondents from denying that fact
could only mean that even the HLURB, and not just the before the courts. The lower courts had ruled that the
local government of Cauayan erred when in 1996 it government of Cauayan City is not bound by estoppel,
classified the property as but petitioners point out our holding in Republic v.
_______________ Sandiganbayan72where it was clarified that this
concept is understood to refer to acts and mistakes of its
66 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 771.
67 Rollo, p. 91. officials especially those which are irregular.73Indeed,
68 See Executive Order No. 648 (1991), Article IV, Sec. 5(b). despite the general rule that the State cannot be put in
69 Id. estoppel by the mistake or errors of its officials or
365
agents, we have also recognized, thus:
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 365 _______________
70 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), pp. 92-97.
71 Id., at pp. 103-107, 126-127, 140-141. such as the local governments land use plan or zoning
72 G.R. No. 108292, 10 September 1993, 226 SCRA 314.
73 Id., at pp. 325-326. See also Republic v. Court of Appeals, 361
ordinance that would indicate that the property was not
Phil. 319; 301 SCRA 366 (1999); Presidential Commission on Good commercial. Respondents did not do so, and the absence
Government v. Sandiganbayan, 353 Phil. 80; 290 SCRA 639 (1998); H. of any evidence other than bare assertions that the 1996
de Leon, Philippine Constitutional Law, at p. 781. to 2001 certifications were incorrect lead to the
366
ineluctable conclusion that respondents are estopped
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED from asserting that the previous recognition of the
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy property as commercial was wrong.
Estoppels against the public are little favored. The RTC nonetheless asserted that the previous
They should not be invoked except in a rare and
certifications, issued by Deputy Zoning Administrator
unusual circumstances, and may not be invoked
where they would operate to defeat the effective
Romeo N. Perez (Perez), were incorrect as he had no
operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. authority to make the
_______________
They must be applied with circumspection and should
be applied only in those special cases where the 74 Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 73 at p. 329; p. 377;
interests of justice clearly require it. Nevertheless, the citing 31 CJS 675-676.
government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably 75 Presidential Commission on Good Government v.
or capriciously with its citizens, and must not play an Sandiganbayan, supra note 73.
ignoble part or do a shabby thing; and subject to 367
limitations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 367
be invoked against public authorities as well as Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
against private individuals.74 conversion or reclassification of the land from
Thus, when there is no convincing evidence to prove agricultural to commercial.76 Yet contrary to the
irregularity or negligence on the part of the government premise of the RTC, the certifications issued by Perez
official whose acts are being disowned other than the did no such thing. Nowhere in the certifications did it
bare assertion on the part of the State, we have declined state that Perez was exercising the power to reclassify
to apply State immunity from estoppel.75 Herein, there the land from agricultural to commercial. What Perez
is absolutely no evidence other than the bare assertions attested to in those documents was that the property is
of the respondents that the Cauayan City government classified as Commercial area, in conformity with the
had previously erred when it certified that the property Land Use Plan of this municipality and does not in any
had been zoned for commercial use. One would assume way violate the existing Zoning Ordinance of Cauayan,
that if respondents were correct, they would have Isabela. What these certifications confirm is that
adduced the factual or legal basis for their contention, according to the Land Use Plan and existing zoning
ordinances of Cauayan, the property in question is at the time of the enactment of the CARL, it does not
commercial. fall within the class of agricultural lands which may be
Compounding its error, the RTC also stated that subject of conversion under Section 65 of that law.
following Section 6577 of Rep. Act No. 6657, or the Section 65, as relied upon by the trial court, would have
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, only the DAR, been of relevance only if it had been demonstrated by
upon proper application can authorize the respondents that the property was still classified as
reclassification or conversion of the use of the land from agricultural when the CARL was enacted.
agricultural to residential, commercial or industrial. It is worth emphasizing that because the acts
The citation is misleading. Section 4 of the same law complained of the respondents led to the closure of
provides for the scope of the agrarian reform program petitioners radio stations, at the height of election
under the CARL as covering all public and private season no less, respondents actions warrant strict
agricultural lands, as provided in Proclamation No. 131 scrutiny from the courts, and there can be no
and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of presumption that their acts are constitutional or valid.
the public domain suitable for agriculture.78 Section In discharging the burden of establishing the validity of
3(c) defines agricultural lands as land devoted to their actions, it is expected that respondents, as a
agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not condition sine qua non, present the legal basis for their
classified as mineral, forest, residential, claim that the property was not zoned commercially
_______________ the proclaimed reason for the closure of the radio
stations. The lower courts should have known better
76 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 302.
77 SECTION 65. Conversion of Lands.After the lapse of five than to have swallowed respondents unsubstantiated
(5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically assertion hook, line and sinker.
feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become We can also point out that aside from the evidence
urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for
residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon
we have cited, petitioners contention that the property
application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the had been duly classified for commercial use finds
affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the corroboration from the Order dated 14 March 2002
reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: provided, issued by DAR Region II Director Aydinan in Adm. Case
that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
78 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), Sec. 4.
No. A-0200A-07B-002. The Order stated, viz.:
368 Official records examined by this Office indicate
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED continued use of subject land for purposes other than
agricultural since 1986. Back when Cauayan was still a
municipality, the Office of the Planning and Development
commercial or industrial land.79 Obviously, if the Coordinator documented subject land under a commercial
property had already been classified as commercial land
classification. The Zoning Administrator deputized by the DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990.81 Respondents
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board certified in 1998 thus hint at a scenario where petitioners scrambled to
that subject lands attribution to the Commercial Zone is in create the Order out of nowhere in order to comply with
conformity with the Land Use Plan of this municipality and the sought-after requirements. However, an
does not in any way
_______________
examination of the Order reveals an explanation that
attests to the veracity of the Order without denigrating
79 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), Sec. 3(c). from the truthfulness of the RCLUPPI certification.
369 The Order notes that the petition had been filed by
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 369 CDC with the DAR Region II to, in effect, officially
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy remove from the agrarian reform sub-zone, in
violate any existing Zoning Ordinance of Cauayan, Isabela particular, and the broad agricultural, in general,
adding the stipulation that a 15 meter setback from the Petitioners land holding embraced by Transfer
centerline of the National Road has to be observed.
Certificate of Title No. T-254786 which is located in
If the area in which subject land is found was already _______________
classified non-agricultural even before urban growth saw
Cauayan became a city in 2001, assuming its reversion to the 80 Id., at pp. 113-114.
agricultural zone now taxes logic. In any case, such a dubious 81 See CA Rollo (G.R. No. 170270), p. 234.
assumption can find no support in any current land use plan 370
for Cauayan approved by the National Economic 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Development Authority.80 Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
Petitioners citation of this Order has been viciously [B]arangay Minante II of Cauayan City x x x.82 It goes
attacked by respondents, with approval from the lower on to state:
courts. Yet their challenges are quite off-base, and Herein petition can go through the normal procedure
ultimately irrelevant. and, after the submission of certain documentary supports
The Order has been characterized by respondents as that have to be gathered yet from various agencies, should
a forgery, based on a certification issued by the Head of be granted as a matter of course. However, a new dimension
the RCLUPPI Secretariat that his office has no official has been introduced when the unformalized conversion of the
record nor case docketed of the petition filed by CBS use of subject land from an agricultural to a non-agricultural
mode has provided an excuse to some official quarters to
Development Corporation, represented by Charmy
disallow existing commercial operation, nay, the broadcast
Sabigan and the order issued bearing Docket No. Adm.
activities of Petitioner and, thus, perhaps threaten an
Case No. A-02200A-07B-002 of the subject case, did not essential freedom in our democratic setting, the liberty of
emanate from RCLUPPI which has its own docketing mass media organizations to dispense legitimate information
system to applications for conversion/exemption under to the public unhampered by any extraneous obstacles.
Hence, overarching public interest has made an official Coverage, Land-Owners and Special Concerns, Other
declaration of subject landholdings removal from the Potential Flash Points of Agrarian Conflict, and Long-
agricultural zone most urgent and, thus immediate action on Standing Problems Calling for Discretionary Decision
the case imperative. Making.83
To the extent that legitimate social interest are In so many words, DAR Region II Director Aydinan
unnecessarily prejudiced otherwise, procedural rules laid manifested that he was assuming direct jurisdiction
down by Government must yield to the living reason and to over the petition, to the exclusion of subordinate offices
common sense in the concrete world as long as the such as that which issued the certification at the behest
underlying principles of effective social-justice
of the respondents, the RCLUPPI of the DAR Region II
administration and good governance are not unduly
Office. Thus, the RCLUPPI could have validly attested
sacrificed. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Department of
Agrarian Reform, or DAR for brevity, to take into account in that the subject case did not emanate from the
decision-making with respect to the case at hand more basic RCLUPPI which has its own docketing system to
principles in order to uphold the cause of conscientious and applications for conversion/exemption under DOJ
timely public service. Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. One could quibble over
Needless to say, this Office, given the latitude of whether Director Aydinan had authority to assume
discretion inherent to it, can simultaneously address the direct jurisdiction over CDCs petition to the exclusion
Petition and the procedural concerns collateral to it when of the RCLUPPI, but it would not detract from the
subordinate offices tend to treat such concerns as factors apparent fact that the Director of the DAR Region II
complicating the essential question or questions and view the Office did issue the challenged Order. Assuming that
Petition as one that it is not amenable to ready problem-
the Order was issued without or in excess of
solving and immediate decision-making. To forestall a cycle
jurisdiction, it does not mean that the Order was forged
of helpless inaction or indecisive actions on the part of the
subordinate offices as customarily happens in cases of this or spurious, it would mean that the Order is void.
nature, this Office shall proceed to treat the petition at hand How necessary is it for us to delve into the validity or
as a matter of original jurisdiction in line with its order of efficacy of the Aydinan Order? Certainly, any
Assumption of Direct Jurisdiction of 03 December 2001, a conclusions we draw from the said Order are ultimately
prior action taken, in general, by this Office over cases of irrelevant to the resolution of these petitions. The
Land-Tenure Improvement, Failure, Problematic evidence is compelling enough that the property had
_______________ already been duly classified for commercial use long
82 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 112. before the Aydinan Order was issued. Respondents,
371 who had the burden of proving that they were
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 371 warranted in ordering the closure of the radio stations,
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy failed to present any evidence to dispute the long-
standing commercial character of the property. The or zoning ordinances and other relevant laws. No
inevitable conclusion is that respondents very well evidence to that effect was presented by the
knew that the property, was commercial in character, respondents either to the petitioners, or to the courts.
yet still proceeded without valid reason and on false V.
pretenses, to refuse to issue the mayors permit and Having established that respondents had violated
subsequently close the radio stations. There is circum- petitioners legal and constitutional rights, let us now
_______________ turn to the appropriate reliefs that should be granted.
At the time petitioners filed their special civil action
83 Id., at pp. 112-113.
372 for mandamuson 15 April 2004, their radio stations
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED remained in operation despite an earlier attempt by
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy respondents to close the same, by virtue of an order
stantial evidence that these actions were animated by rendered by the COMELEC. The mandamus action
naked political motive, by plain dislike by the Cauayan sought to compel respondents to immediately issue
City powers-that-be of the content of the broadcast petitioners zoning clearances and mayors permit for
emanating in particular from DZNC, which had ties to 2004. During the pendency of the action for mandamus,
political opponents of the respondents. Respondents respondents finally succeeded in closing the radio
were further estopped from disclaiming the previous stations, and it was possible at that stage for petitioners
consistent recognition by the Cauayan City government to have likewise sought the writs of prohibition
that the property was commercially zoned unless they and/or certiorari.373
had evidence, which they had none, that the local VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 373
officials who issued such certifications acted irregularly Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
in doing so. Petitioners instead opted to seek for a writ or
It is thus evident that respondents had no valid preliminary mandatory injunction from the trial court,
cause at all to even require petitioners to secure a viable recourse albeit one that remains ancillary to
approved land conversion papers from the DAR the main action for mandamus.
showing that the property was converted from prime We had previously acknowledged that petitioners are
agricultural land to commercial land. That entitled to a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
requirement, assuming that it can be demanded by a that would have prevented the closure of the radio
local government in the context of approving mayors stations. In addition, we hold that the writ
permits, should only obtain upon clear proof that the of mandamus lies. Mandamus lies as the proper relief
property from where the business would operate was whenever a public officer unlawfully neglects the
classified as agricultural under the LGUs land use plan performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins
as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or (2) Freedom of speech;
unlawfully excludes another from the use and We noted in Lim v. Ponce de Leon that [p]ublic
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is officials in the past have abused their powers on the
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.84 For the performance of their duties [and] the object of
year 2004, petitioners had duly complied with the [Article 32 of the Civil Code] is to put an end to official
requirements for the issuance of the same mayors abuse by plea of the good faith.85 The application of
permit they had obtained without issue in years prior. Article 32 not only serves as a measure of pecuniary
There was no basis for respondents to have withheld the recovery to mitigate the injury to constitutional rights,
zoning clearances, and consequently the mayors it likewise serves notice to public officers and employees
permit, thereby depriving petitioners of the right to that any violation on their part of any persons
broadcast as certified by the Constitution and their guarantees under the Bill of Rights will meet with final
particular legislative franchise. reckoning.
We turn to the issue of damages. Petitioners had The present prayer for temperate damages is
sought to recover from respondents P8 Million in premised on the existence of pecuniary injury to
temperate damages, P1 Million in exemplary damages, petitioner due to the actions of respondents, the amount
and P1 Million in attorneys fees. Given respondents of which nevertheless being difficult to
clear violation of petitioners constitutional guarantee prove.86 Temperate damages avail when the court finds
of free expression, the right to damages from that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its
respondents is squarely assured by Article 32 (2) of the amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved
Civil Code, which provides: with certainty.87 The existence of pecuniary injury at bar
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private cannot be denied. Petitioners had no way of knowing it
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, when they filed their petition, but the actions of
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the respondents led to the closure of their radio
following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable stations from June 2004 until this Court issued a writ
to the latter for damages: of preliminary injunction in January 2006.88 The lost
x x x x
_______________
potential income during that one and a half year of
closure can only be presumed as substantial enough.
84 Rules of Civil Procedure (1997), Rule 65, Sec. 3. Still, despite that fact, possibly unanticipated when the
374 original amount for claimed temperate damages was
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED calculated, petitioners have maintained before this
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy Court the same amount, P8 Million,
_______________ Regional Trial Court of Cauayan City, Branch 24, are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant
85 160 Phil. 991, 1001; 66 SCRA 299, 309 (1975). See also MHP
Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86720, 2 September 1994, petition for mandamus is hereby GRANTED and
236 SCRA 227, 235. respondents are directed to immediately issue
86 Rollo (G.R. No. 179411), p. 183. petitioners zoning clearances and mayors permits for
87 See Civil Code, Art. 2224.
88 According to an article posted on the official website of Bombo
2004 to petitioners.
Radyo, DZNC accordingly resumed broadcast on 8 February 2006. Respondents Caesar G. Dy, Felicisimo G. Meer,
See http://www.bomboradyo.com/archive/new/stationprofile/bomboca Bagnos Maximo, and Racma Fernandez-Garcia are
uayan/index.htm(last visited, 6 March 2009) hereby ORDERED to pay petitioners JOINTLY AND
375
SEVERALLY the following amounts in damages:
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 375 _______________
for temperate damages. We deem the amount of P4 89 See Civil Code, Art. 2225.
90 [Exemplary damages] are an antidote so that the poison of
Million reasonable under the circumstances.89 wickedness may not run through the body politic. Octot v. Ybaez, etc.,
Exemplary damages can be awarded herein, since et al., 197 Phil. 76, 82; 111 SCRA 79, 84 (1982).
temperate damages are available. Public officers who 91 [The award of exemplary damages] would be allowed only if the
violate the Constitution they are sworn to uphold guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner. Octot v. Ybaez, supra note 87, at p. 85;
embody a poison of wickedness that may not run citing Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 223 (1979).
through the body politic.90 Respondents, by purposely 92 Patricio v. Hon. Leviste, G.R. No. L-51832, 26 April 1989, 172
denying the commercial character of the property in SCRA 774.
376
order to deny petitioners the exercise of their
constitutional rights and their business, manifested bad 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
faith in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive and Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Dy
malevolent manner.91 The amount of exemplary (1) FOUR MILLION PESOS (P4,000,000.00)
damages need not be proved where it is shown that as TEMPERATE DAMAGES;93
plaintiff is entitled to temperate damages,92 and the (2) ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) as
sought for amount of P1 Million is more than EXEMPLARY DAMAGES;
appropriate. We likewise deem the amount of P500 (3) FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
Thousand in attorneys fees as suitable under the (P500,000.00) as ATTORNEYS FEES.
circumstances. Costs against respondents.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The SO ORDERED.
assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals and the
Quisumbing (Chairman), Carpio-Morales, Velasco,
Jr. andPeralta,** JJ., concur.
Petitions granted, judgments reversed and set aside.
Note.True freedom is not freedom divorced from
responsibility but freedom coupled with responsibility.
Freedom of speech and expression like other
constitutional freedoms is not absoluteit is subject to
the limitation of equally important public interests such
as the maintenance of the integrity and orderly
functioning of justice. (Complaint of Mr.
Aurelio Indencia Arrienda Against SC Justices Puno,
Kapunan, Pardo, Ynares-Santiago, et al., 460 SCRA 1
[2005])
o0o
_______________
93 While Cauayan City may have been impleaded as a respondent

in the petition for mandamus, liability for damages under Article 32 of
the Civil Code falls only on the public officers and employees who
infringed petitioners constitutional rights.
** Additional member as replacement of Justice Arturo D. Brion
who is on official leave per Special Order No. 587.
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights

reserved.

Newsound Broadcasting Network vs. Dy

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newsound Broadcasting Network vs. Dy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newsound Broadcasting Network vs. Dy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Note.

93 While Cauayan City may have been impleaded as a respondent

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights

You might also like

Newsound Broadcasting Network vs. Dy

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information1. Newsound Broadcasting Network vs. Dy

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newsound Broadcasting Network vs. Dy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newsound Broadcasting Network vs. Dy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Note.

93 While Cauayan City may have been impleaded as a respondent

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights

You might also like