Case Digest (G.R. No. 211289) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Tomas Velasco, Lourdes Ramirez, Sy Pin, Edmundo Unson, Apolonia Ramirez and Lourdes Lomibao, as component members of the Sta. Cruz Barbershop Association, in their own behalf and in representation of the other owners of barbershops in the City of Manila (petitioners-appellants) versus Hon. Antonio J. Villegas, City Mayor of Manila; Hon. Herminio A. Astorga, Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Municipal Board in relation to R.A. No. 4065; the Municipal Board of the City of Manila; and Eduardo Quintos, Sr., Chief of Police of the City of Manila (respondents-appellees), G.R. No. L-24153, decided February 14, 1983, the petitioners sought a declaratory relief to annul Ordinance No. 4964 of the City of Manila. Enacted under the City’s police power, the Ordinance prohibited barber shop operators from conducting massage services in rooms adjacent to or within the same building as their shops. The petitioners claimed the measure deprived them of their means of livelihood without d Case Digest (G.R. No. 211289) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Representation
- Petitioners-Appellants
- Tomas Velasco, Lourdes Ramirez, Sy Pin, Edmundo Unson, Apolonia Ramirez, and Lourdes Lomibao
- Acting as component members of the Sta. Cruz Barbershop Association and in representation of all barbershop owners in the City of Manila
- Respondents-Appellees
- Hon. Antonio J. Villegas, City Mayor of Manila
- Hon. Herminio A. Astorga, Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Municipal Board
- The Municipal Board of the City of Manila
- Eduardo Quintos, Sr., Chief of Police of the City of Manila
- Ordinance No. 4964 and Lower Court Proceedings
- Ordinance No. 4964, Section 1
- Prohibits any barber shop operator from conducting massage business in any adjacent room(s) of the barber shop or in any room(s) within the same building under the same operator.
- Proceedings Below
- Petitioners-Appellants filed for declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance, alleging deprivation of property and means of livelihood without due process.
- They admitted that criminal charges for violations of the ordinance had already been filed and resolved.
- The trial court dismissed the petition for declaratory relief on the ground that such remedy is unavailable once a criminal case involving the same issue has been adjudicated.
Issues:
- Whether a petition for declaratory relief lies when criminal cases involving the same ordinance have already been filed and decided.
- Whether Ordinance No. 4964 constitutes an unconstitutional deprivation of property or means of livelihood without due process.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)