Police Power MMDA vs Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising GR 179554 December 16, 2009 Facts: Respondent Trackworks Rail

Transit Advertising entered into a contract for advertising with the Metro Rail Transit Corp. and thereafter installed commercial billboards, signages and other advertising media in different parts of the MRT 3 premises. 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 spaces. Trackworks refused the said request and then MMDA proceeded to dismantle the billboards and similar 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 materials installed on the MRT3 structure by Trackworks. The MMDAs powers were limited to the formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, management, monitoring, 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 MRTCs 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 the time material to this case, and until this date, MRTCs entering into the contract for advertising services with Trackworks was a valid exercise of ownership. MMDA also may not invoke that it is implementing the Buliding Code rules and regulations because the power to enforce this lies with the

DPWH and not in the MMDA. The DPWH hass not delegated the MMDA to implement such Code. Petition is denied.