CHURCHILL v RAFFERTY

1915)
Trent J
FACTS:
Plaintiffs put up a billboard on private land in Rizal Province "quite a distance from the
road and strongly built". Some residents (German and British Consuls) find it offensive.
Act # 2339 allows the defendent, the Collector of Internal Revenue, to collect taxes from
such property and to remove it when it is offensive to sight. Court of first Instance
prohibited the defendant to collect or remove the billboard.
ISSUE:
1.May the courts restrain by injunction the collection of taxes?
2.Is Act # 2339 unconstitutional because it deprives property without due process of law
in allowing CIR to remove it if it is offensive?
RULE:
1.an injunction is an extraordinary remedy and not to be used if there is an adequate
remedy provided by law; here there is an adequate remedy, therefore court may not do
so.
2.unsightly advertisements which are offensive to the sight are not dissociated from the
general welfare of the public, therefore can be regulated by police power, and act is
constitutional.
RATIONALE:
1.Writ of injunction by the courts is an extraordinary preventive remedy. Ordinary
(adequate) remedies are in the law itself. Sections 139 and 140 of the Act forbids the
use of injunction and provides a remedy for any wrong. _Plaintiffs say that those
sections are unconstitutional because by depriving taxpayers remedy, it also deprives
them of property without due process of law and it diminishes the power of the courts_.
Taxes, whether legal or illegal, cannot be restrained by the courts by injunction. There
must be a further showing that there are special circumstances such as irreparable
injury, multiplicity of suits or a cloud upon title to real estate will result. Practically, if the
courts can do so then there will be an insane number of suits enjoining the collection of
taxes by tax avoiders. The state will not function since taxes are not paid (and judges
will become unpaid!). There is, of course, no law nor jurisprudence that says it is
not allowed to sue after having paid the tax, and such is the usual course in bringing
suits against illegal(?) taxes. Pay it
under protest. As to the diminishment of power of the courts, the Philippine courts never
had the power to restrain the collection of taxes by injunction. It is said par 2 sec 56 Act

136 confers original jurisdiction upon CFI to hear and determine all civil actions but civil
actions at that time had a well-defined meaning. The legislature had already defined
the only action previously and that is the payment of the tax under protest then suit. Civil
actions like injunction suits are of a special extraordinary character. Section 139 also
does not diminish power of the courts because the power is still there if there is no
adequate remedy available but sec 140 gives an adequate remedy.
2.sec 100 of act 2339 gives power to the CIR to remove offensive billboards, signs,
signboards after due invstigation. The question becomes is that a reasonable exercise
of police power affecting the advertising industry? Police power is reasonable insofar as
it properly considers public health, safety, comfort, etc. If nothing can justify a statute,
it's void. State may interfere in public interest but not final. Court is final. Police power
has been expanding. Blahblahblah (consti1). The basic idea of civil polity in US is gov't
should interfere with individual effort only to the extent necessary to preserve a healthy
social and economic condition of society. State interferes with private property through,
taxation, eminent domain and police power. Only under the last are the benefits derived
from the maintenance of a healthy economic standard of society and aka damnum
absque injuria. Once police power was reserved for common nuisances. Now industry
is organized along lines which make it possible for large combinations of capital to profit
at the expense of socio-economic progress of the nation by controlling prices and
dictating to industrial workers wages and conditions of labor. It has increased the toll on
life and affects public health, safety and morals, also general social and economic
life of the nation, as such state must necessarily regulate industries. Various industries
have regulated and even offensive noises and smells coming from those industries.
Those noises and smells though ostensibly regulated for health reason are actually
regulated for more aesthetic reasons. What is more aesthetic than sight which the ad
industry is wooing us with. Ads cover landscapes etc. The success of billboards lie not
upon the use of private property but on channels of travel used by the general public.
Billboard that cannot be seen by people are useless. Billboards are legitimate, they are
not garbage but can be offensive in certain circumstances. Other courts in US hold the
view that police power cannot interfere with private property rights for purely aesthetic
purposes. But this court is of the opinion that unsightly advertisements which are
offensive to the sight are not dissociated from the general welfare of the public