CHURCHILL and STEWART TAIT vs. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

FRANCIS A. CHURCHILL and STEWART TAIT vs. JAMES J.

RAFFERTY, Collector
of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-10572, December 21, 1915
TRENT, J.:

FACTS: Plaintiffs put up a billboard on a private land located in Rizal Province “quite
distance from the road and strongly built, not dangerous to the safety of the people, and
contained no advertising matter which is filthy, indecent, or deleterious to the morals of
the community.” However, defendant Rafferty, Collector of Internal Revenue, decided to
remove the billboards after due investigation made upon the complaints of the British
and German Consuls.

Act No. 2339 authorized the then Collector of Internal Revenue to remove after due
investigation, any billboard exposed to the public view if it decides that it is offensive to
the sight or is otherwise a nuisance.

In the agreed statement of facts submitted by the parties, the plaintiffs "admit that the
billboards mentioned were and still are offensive to the sight."

The Court of First Instance perpetually restrains and prohibits the defendant and his
deputies from collecting and enforcing against the plaintiffs and their property the
annual tax mentioned and described in subsection (b) of section 100 of Act No. 2339,
effective July 1, 1914, and from destroying or removing any sign, signboard, or
billboard, the property of the plaintiffs and decrees the cancellation of the bond given by
the plaintiffs.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON Act No. 2339 was a legitimate exercise of the police power of the
Government?

HELD: YES. Things offensive to the senses, such as sight, smell or hearing, may be
suppressed by the State especially those situated in thickly populated districts.
Aesthetics may be regulated by the police power of the state, as long as it is justified by
public interest and safety.

Moreover, 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 of the State.

Hence, the judgment of the CFI is reversed.

You might also like