Case Digest (G.R. No. 266921)
Facts:
In De la Cruz et al. v. Paras et al., twenty-five operators of night clubs and cabarets in Bocaue, Bulacan, led by Vicente De la Cruz, petitioned for certiorari to annul Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975, which outright prohibited the issuance or renewal of licenses for night clubs, cabarets, dance halls, and their hostesses. Enacted on October 1975 by the Municipal Council, the measure defined “Night Club,” “Cabaret,” “Professional Hostess,” and “Operator,” revoked existing permits after a thirty-day wind-up, and penalized violators with imprisonment or fine. On November 5, 1975, petitioners filed prohibition cases before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, alleging that the municipality lacked authority to ban a lawful trade, had withdrawn licenses without hearing, and that Presidential Decree No. 189 (as amended by PD No. 259) had vested licensing power in the Department of Tourism. The trial court and subsequently the Intermediate Appellate Court, under Justice Paras, uphCase Digest (G.R. No. 266921)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioners comprised 24 nightclub operators and hostesses in Bocaue, Bulacan, holding existing licenses to operate night clubs, cabarets, and employ hospitality girls and professional dancers.
- Respondents were the Municipal Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and the Municipal Council of Bocaue, Bulacan, which enacted Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975.
- Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975
- Definitions (Section 2): “Night Club,” “Cabaret” or “Dance Hall,” “Professional Hostesses,” “Professional Dancers,” and “Operator” were broadly defined to cover any establishment or personnel engaged in public dancing entertainment.
- Prohibitory and Regulatory Provisions (Sections 3–5, 8):
- Absolute prohibition on issuance or renewal of permits/licenses for night clubs, cabarets, dance halls, professional hostesses, and dancers.
- Revocation of existing licenses after a 30-day grace period and criminal penalties (up to 3 months imprisonment or fine up to ₱200) for violations.
- Effective immediately upon approval, with 30 days to wind up existing businesses.
- Procedural History
- On November 5, 1975, petitioners filed two civil cases for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, challenging the ordinance as void for exceeding municipal power and violating due process and equal protection, and alleging deprivation of jurisdiction due to transfer of licensing authority to the Department of Tourism under Presidential Decrees No. 189 and 259.
- The trial court issued temporary restraining orders; respondents answered, asserting municipal police power to regulate or prohibit under Section 2243 of the Revised Administrative Code and pertinent Republic Acts, and denying any due process or equal protection breaches.
- On January 15, 1976, the trial court upheld the ordinance’s validity under police power, lifted the restraining orders effective February 1, 1976, and dismissed the petitions.
- Petitioners appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court, which took up the case en banc.
Issues:
- Scope of Municipal Police Power
- Whether a municipal council may, by ordinance, prohibit the operation of night clubs and related businesses that are otherwise lawful occupations.
- Whether absolute prohibition is a reasonable exercise of the general welfare (police) power under the Administrative Code and applicable statutes.
- Due Process, Equal Protection, and Jurisdictional Authority
- Whether the revocation of existing licenses without a judicial hearing violated petitioners’ rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.
- Whether licensing and regulatory authority over tourist-oriented businesses, including night clubs, had been transferred to the Department of Tourism under Presidential Decree No. 189 (as amended), thereby divesting the municipality of jurisdiction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)