Facts:

The case involves The People of the Philippine Islands as the plaintiff and Teofilo Gabriel as the defendant, with the decision rendered on July 25, 1922. The events took place in the city of Manila, where the Municipal Court found Gabriel guilty of violating Ordinance No. 938, enacted under Section 749 of the revised city ordinances. This ordinance regulates the use of bells and criers at auctions, allowing such activities only during specified hours on working days and prohibiting them in certain areas, including Calles Escolta, Rosario, Echague, Plaza Santa Cruz, and Plaza Goiti. On September 26, 1921, at approximately 11:20 a.m., a policeman named William S. Able observed a crier announcing an auction sale at a business located at 109 and 111 Rosario Street. The crier's voice was audible from a considerable distance, prompting the filing of a complaint against Gabriel. The Municipal Court imposed a fine of P10 and costs on...

Facts:

1. Ordinance in Question: The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 938 under Section 749, which regulated the use of bells, criers, or other noise-making devices to attract bidders at auctions. The ordinance prohibited such activities except between specific hours (8:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM to 7:00 PM) on working days. Additionally, it entirely banned the use of these methods on specific streets and plazas, including Calles Escolta, Rosario, Echague, Plaza Santa Cruz, and Plaza Goiti.
2. Violation of the Ordinance: On September 26, 1921, at around 11:20 AM, a policeman named William S. Able heard a crier at an auction on Rosario Street. The crier's voice was audible from a considerable distance, leading to the filing of a complaint against the defendant, Teofilo Gabriel.
3. Lower Court Proceedings: The Municipal Court found Gabriel guilty of violating the ordinance and imposed a fine of P10 and costs. The Court of First Instance affirmed this decision on appeal.
4. Defendant's Argument: Gabriel appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ordinance was discriminatory, void, and unconstitutional.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Police Power of the City: The City Council of Manila has the authority, under its police power, to regulate public auctions within its jurisdiction. This includes the power to control the manner, time, and place of such auctions.
2. Uniform Application: The ordinance applies equally to all individuals and businesses operating within the prohibited areas (Calles Escolta, Rosario, Echague, Plaza Santa Cruz, and Plaza Goiti). There is no discrimination, as the regulation is uniform and applies to everyone in the specified zones.
3. Discretion of the City Council: The court emphasized that it is not within its province to question the wisdom or prudence of the ordinance. As long as the regulation is reasonable and within the scope of the city's police power, it is valid.
4. No Constitutional Violation: The ordinance does not infringe on any constitutional rights. The city has the authority to require licenses or consent for auction activities and to regulate how such activities are conducted.

The judgment was affirmed, with costs imposed on the defendant.