Case Digest (G.R. No. 17252-76) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In the case of Gorgonia Miranda, et al. vs. City of Manila (G.R. No. 17252-76), the plaintiffs, Gorgonia Miranda and others, commenced legal proceedings against the City of Manila on separate complaints filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila. They sought to nullify Ordinance No. 3628, which prohibits the operation of pinball machines within a 200-meter radius of educational institutions, hospitals, and government buildings, and to enforce an annual fee of ₱300.00 for the operation of these machines. Additionally, they contested Ordinance No. 3941, which outright bans the issuance of licenses for any pinball machine operations. The plaintiffs requested the court to prevent the City of Manila and its representatives from enforcing these ordinances concerning their pinball businesses.After a joint hearing on February 12, 1959, the lower court ruled that both ordinances were null and void, issuing a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The City of Manila su
Case Digest (G.R. No. 17252-76) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Ordinances in Question:
- Ordinance No. 3628: Prohibits the operation of pinball machines within a 200-meter radius of any church, hospital, institution of learning, public market, plaza, or government building. It also imposes an annual fee of P300.00 for the installation and use of such machines.
- Ordinance No. 3941: Prohibits the issuance of any license for the operation of pinball machines under any circumstances.
- Plaintiffs' Claim:
- Plaintiffs, operators of pinball machines, filed separate complaints seeking to invalidate the two ordinances and to enjoin the City of Manila from enforcing them.
- Procedural History:
- The cases were consolidated for joint hearing.
- The trial court declared both ordinances null and void and permanently enjoined their enforcement.
- The City of Manila appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court due to the constitutional issues involved.
- Pinball Machines:
- The machines were described as devices where players insert coins to propel balls or marbles into scoring or "pay-off" holes.
- Observations showed that the outcome depended largely on chance, with skilled players having a slightly higher chance of winning.
- The machines were often patronized by schoolchildren and idle adults, leading to concerns about their impact on public welfare.
Issues:
- Whether Ordinances Nos. 3628 and 3941 are valid with respect to the provisions affecting the operation of pinball machines.
- Whether pinball machines owned by the plaintiffs are operated for gambling purposes.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)