Police Power MMDA vs Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising GR 179554 December 16, 2009 Facts: Respondent Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising entered into a contra contract ct for advertis advertising ing with with the Metro Rail Transi Transitt Corp. Corp. and and therea thereafte fterr instal installed led comme commerci rcial al billbo billboard ards, s, sig signag nages es and other other adve advert rtis isin ing g medi media a in diff differ eren entt part parts s of the the MRT MRT 3 prem premis ises es.. Sometime in 2001 MMDA requested Trackworks to dismantle said billboards and signages pursuant to MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 wherein the MMDA prohibits the posting, installation, and display of any kind or form of billboards, signs, posters, streamers, in any part of the road, sidewalk, center-island, posts, trees, parks and open spac sp aces es.. Trac Trackw kwor orks ks refu refuse sed d the the said said requ reques estt and and then then MMDA MMDA pro proceed ceeded ed to dism ismant antle the the bill billb board ards and and sim similar ilar for forms of advertisement. Trackworsk filed a civil case before the Pasig RTC, a temporary restraining order was issued against MMDA. The MMDA filed a petition with the Court of Appeals but denied said petition and affirmed the order of the RTC. Petition was then filed with the SC which denied the same and eventually this resolution after a petition for review. Issue: Whether or not the MMDA has the power under its mandate to cause the dismantling of respondents’ advertisement materials. Held: No, the Court ruled that MMDA had no power on its own to dismantle, remove or destroy the billboards and other advertising mate materi rial als s inst instal alle led d on the the MRT3 MRT3 stru struct ctur ure e by Trac Trackw kwor orks ks.. The The MMDA MMDA’s ’s powe powers rs were were limi limite ted d to the the form formul ulat atio ion, n, coor coordi dina nati tion on,, regulation regulation,, implemen implementatio tation, n, manageme management, nt, monitorin monitoring, g, setting setting of policies, installing a system and administration. Nothing in Republic Act 7924 granted MMDA police power let alone legislative power. Trackworks derived its right to install its billboards, signages and other advertising media in the MRT 3 from MRTC’s authority under the BLT agreement to develop commercial premises in the MRT3 structure or to obtain advertising income is no longer debatable. Under the BLT agreement, MRTC owned the MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration of which MRTC would transfer ownership of the MRT3 to the Government. Considering that MRTC remained to be the owner of the MRT3 during during the time material material to this case, case, and until until this this date, date, MRTC’s MRTC’s enteri entering ng into into the contra contract ct for advert advertisi ising ng services with Trackworks was a valid exercise of ownership. MMDA also may not invoke that it is implementing the Buliding Code rules and regula regulatio tions ns becaus because e the power to enfor enforce ce this this lies lies with with the
DPWH and not in the MMDA. The DPWH hass not delegated the MMDA to implement such Code. Petition is denied.
