Case Digest (G.R. No. 118127)
Facts:
City of Manila, et al. v. Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005, Supreme Court En Banc, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the City of Manila, its Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, Vice‑Mayor Joselito L. Atienza and members of the City Council; respondent is Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) and Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 18.MTDC owned and operated Victoria Court (a licensed motel/hotel) in the Ermita‑Malate area. On 9 March 1993 the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7783 (approved by the Mayor on 30 March 1993), prohibiting the establishment or operation within the Ermita‑Malate area of enumerated businesses — including motels and inns — described as “businesses providing certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities where women are used as tools in entertainment and which tend to disturb the community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely affect the social and moral welfare of the community,” and imposing penalties and mandatory wind‑up/transfer/ conversion within three months.
On 28 June 1993 MTDC filed a petition for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction in the RTC (Civil Case No. 93‑66511), challenging the Ordinance as unconstitutional and ultra vires because: (a) the Local Government Code of 1991 grants only regulatory, not prohibitory, power over motels and similar establishments (citing Section 458(a)(4)(iv) and (vii)); (b) the Ordinance conflicts with P.D. No. 499, which had already declared the Ermita‑Malate area a commercial zone; (c) the measure was an improper exercise of police power, confiscatory, violative of due process and equal protection, and tantamount to an ex post facto or arbitrary taking.
Respondents (City of Manila and officials) answered, asserting the City Council's police power under Section 458(a) of the Code and the Revised Charter of Manila to regulate or prohibit certain amusements to protect public morals; they also invoked the presumption of validity. The RTC issued an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order on 28 June 1993 and, on 16 July 1993, granted the writ of preliminary injunction. After trial, on 25 November 1994 Judge Laguio rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 7783 null and void and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal in the RTC on 12 December 1994 and thereafter filed the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (filed 11 January 1995), assigning as errors the RTC’s rulings that the Ordinance was ultra vires, repugnant ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Ordinance No. 7783 ultra vires or repugnant to general laws — specifically the Local Government Code of 1991 (Section 458(a)(4)(iv) and (vii)) and P.D. No. 499 — so that the City Council lacked authority to prohibit the enumerated establishments?
- Did the Ordinance violate the Due Process Clause (procedural/substantive), including effecting an unlawful regulatory taking in violation of Article III, Sec. 9 of the 1987 Constitution?
- Did the Ordinance violate the Equal Protection Clause by impermissibly discriminating a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)