TOPIC Substantive Due Process – billboards as nuisance

CASE NO. No. 10572

CASE NAME Churchill and Tait v. Rafferty
PONENTE Trent, J.
PETITIONER Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait
RESPONDENT James J. Rafferty, Collector of Internal Revenue
TYPE OF CASE APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila
MEMBER Timothy Ilog
*ALL EMPHASES ARE MINE

DOCTRINE
1. Quoting the Court: “Ostensibly located on private property, the real and sole value of the billboard is its
proximity to the public thoroughfares. Hence, we conceive that the regulation of billboards and their
restriction is not so much a regulation of private property as it is a regulation of the use of the streets and other
public thoroughfares.” Thus, they are a proper subject to police power.

Again I’m quoting the Court here since it is perfectly worded: “If the police power may be exercised to encourage
a healthy social and economic condition in the country, and if the comfort and convenience of the people are
included within those subjects, everything which encroaches upon such territory is amenable to the police power.
A source of annoyance and irritation to the public does not minister to the comfort and convenience of the
public. And we are of the opinion that the prevailing sentiment is manifestly against the erection of billboards
which are offensive to the sight.”

What it basically says is that since sight is of important sense to man and since police power covers the comfort
and convenience of people, the government can regulate billboards insofar as they are a nuisance to the sense of
sight. It does not restrict the use of private property but restricts the use of public roads and thoroughfares since
billboards, while are on private property, are directed at public gaze.

FACTS
Note: There are no facts stated in the case. It briefly described the case as being an appeal regarding the said provision
and went straight to the issues.
- Subsection (b) of Section 100 of Act. No. 2339 provides:

"If after due investigation the Collector of Internal Revenue shall decide that any sign, signboard, or billboard displayed or
exposed to public view is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance, he may by summary order direct the removal of such
sign, signboard, or billboard, and if same is not removed within ten days after he has issued such order he may himself cause its
removal, and the sign, signboard, or billboard shall thereupon be forfeited to the Government, and the owner thereof charged with
the expenses of the removal so effected. When the sign, signboard, or billboard ordered to be removed as herein provided shall not
comply with the provisions of the general regulations of the Collector of Internal Revenue, no rebate or refund shall be allowed for
any portion of a year for which the taxes may have been paid. Otherwise, the Collector of Internal Revenue may in his discretion
make a proportionate refund of the tax for the portion of the year remaining for which the taxes were paid. An appeal may be had
from the order of the Collector of Internal Revenue to the Secretary of Finance and Justice whose decision thereon shall be final."
(Emphasis mine)

- The appealed decision basically prohibited the respondents from collecting and enforcing against the petitioners
and their property the annual tax described and mentioned above and from destroying or removing the plaintiffs’
(petitioners) sign or signboard or billboard for the reason that they are offensive to the sight.

Argumentation of both sides on the relevant issue

- Petitioner: the billboards are not “a nuisance and not deleterious to the health, morals or general welfare of the
community, or of any persons.”
- Respondent: the billboard was found to be “offensive to the sight, and is otherwise a nuisance” after
investigating upon the complaints of British and German Consuls
- Petitioner: the billboards were distant from the road, strongly built that does not endanger people’s safety and
had no content that is filthy, indecent or deleterious to the morals of the community
1
 - However, “the plaintiffs admit that the billboards mentioned were and still are offensive to the sight” in an agreed
statement of facts submitted by both
- Respondent then says that the question of the case to be resolved is “Is the suppression of advertising signs
displayed or exposed to public view, which are admittedly offensive to the sight, conducive to public interest?”
- Petitioner on the other hand contends that the said provision is unconstitutional for it is a deprivation of property
without due process of law.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. Relevant Issue: Whether or not the provisions of subsection (b) of Section 100 of Act No. 2339 are a legitimate
exercise of police of the Government? YES.
2. Other issue: Whether or not the Court has the power to restrain by injunction the collection of the tax complained
of? NO.

RATIO
1. On the issue of whether or not the provisions of subsection (b) of Section 100 of Act No. 2339 are a legitimate
exercise of police of the Government, the Court said that it is.
- The court said that sight is as valuable as the other senses. It noted that a “man’s esthetic feelings are
constantly being appealed through his sense of sight.” Furthermore, it went on saying that the government
has invested much on “parks and boulevards and other forms of civic beauty, the first aim of which is to
appeal to the sense of sight.” From this premise, it asked why the Government should not protect the
sense of sight from annoyance as it does to protect man from offensive noises and smells.
- It also noted that the advertising industry is a legitimate one and that the sense of sight is the primary
essential to this industry’s success.
- “The success of billboard advertising depends not so much upon the use of private property as it does
upon the use of channels of travel used by the general public.”
- The billboards’ value is their proximity to the public thoroughfares. Consequently, regulating them is a
regulation of the use of the streets and other public thoroughfares and not of the use of private property.
- Billboard advertising’s value is based on the fact that the posters are exposed to the public. “It may well
be that the state may not require private property owners to conform to a building line, but may prescribe
the conditions under which they shall make use of the adjoining streets and highways.”
- Lastly, the Court is of the opinion that there is no dissociation between signs, signboards or billboards that
are offensive to the sight and the general welfare of the public. “This is not establishing a new principle,
but carrying a well-recognized principle to further application.”

2. On the issue of whether or not the Court has the power to restrain by injunction the collection of the tax
complained of, the Court said no. There is a long history regarding the writ of injunction that is discussed in the
case.
- The history shows that the writ of injunction has been regarded as an extraordinary, preventive remedy.
The injunction issues only upon “the oath of a party and when there is no adequate remedy at law.”
- Then there is discussion on how both in the Philippines and the US that tax collectors are allowed “to
seize and sell the property of delinquent taxpayers without applying to the courts for assistance.” From
this, the Court pronounced that this must be the case since the Government heavily relies on taxation for
its operations. It opined that the modes for enforcing tax collection being summary and interfered as little
as possible is essential.
- Citing section 5 of the Philippine Bill: “That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal
protection of the law.” It then recognized that these provisions are founded in the substance of the US
Constitution.
- The Court, then went on to compare Section 3224 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and Section
139 (which is the section dealt in this case and which provides that the use of injunction to stay the
collection of any internal revenue tax is prohibited). The Court found that they are essentially the same.
Since the US Supreme Court held that the former provision is constitutional and does not violate the due
process of law and the equal protection of the law, the same must be held here.

2
 - The Court then pronounced that the power to tax includes the power to collect. From this, the
Government may fix the conditions upon which it “will consent to litigate the validity of its original
taxes.”
- Moreover, it said that if the Commission intended to confer the power to restrain the collection of taxes
upon the courts, then this has not been stripped off for the injunction will not issue if there is an adequate
remedy at law. And so, if the remedy is adequate, section 139 did not remove this power but rather made
it inoperative since there is an adequate remedy available.
- The complainants averred, on the other hand, that the removal of injunction against the assessment or
collection of taxes is unconstitutional since the courts have the original jurisdiction over all matters and
have the power to issue, among others, the writ of injunction. However, the Court, quoting Justice
Champlin, that the “Legislature has the constitutional authority, where it has provided a plain, adequate,
and complete remedy at law to recover back taxes illegally assessed and collected, to take away the
remedy by injunction to restrain their collection.” Citing section 9 of the Philippine Bill, which states that
"That the Supreme Court and the Courts of First Instance of the Philippine Islands shall possess and
exercise jurisdiction as heretofore provided and such additional jurisdiction as shall hereafter be
prescribed by the Government of said Islands, subject to the power of said Government to change the
practice and method of procedure." The Court said that this does not take away the government’s power
to change the practice and method of procedure. If section 139 and section 140 (which provides a remedy
in connection with internal revenue taxes, which is intended to be exclusive and precludes the injunction
as a remedy) are considered mode of procedure, then the Legislature has not gone beyond the
Constitution. This can be done provided there is another adequate remedy in lieu of it.
- *Note: This is the first issue resolved by the Court and there is a long discussion on this. But since this is
not the syllabus issue, I opted to shorten it as much as possible.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the said action dismissed upon the mreits,
with costs. So ordered.