Title
Supreme Court
White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila
Case
G.R. No. 122846
Decision Date
Jan 20, 2009
Manila ordinance prohibiting short-time hotel stays challenged as unconstitutional; Supreme Court ruled it violated liberty, privacy, and equal protection rights.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 122846)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Enactment of Ordinance No. 7774
    • Approved December 3, 1992 by Mayor Alfredo S. Lim of the City of Manila.
    • Titled “An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila.”
    • Provisions:
      • Declaration of policy to protect public welfare, health, youth and morality.
      • Definitions: “short-time admission” means renting rooms for less than 12 hours or more than twice a day.
      • Prohibition of short-time, pro-rated (“wash-up”) rates.
      • Penalties: up to ₱5,000 fine and/or one-year imprisonment; automatic cancellation of business license upon second conviction.
      • Repealing clause and immediate effectivity.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • December 15, 1992 – MTDC filed declaratory relief with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction before RTC Manila Branch 9; alleged conflict with P.D. No. 259 authority for short-time rates.
    • December 21, 1992 – White Light Corp., Titanium Corp., and Sta. Mesa Tourist & Dev’t Corp. intervened as petitioners.
    • January 14 and February 8, 1993 – RTC issued TRO and preliminary injunction halting enforcement.
    • October 20, 1993 – RTC declared Ordinance No. 7774 null and void; made injunction permanent.
    • City of Manila appealed to Supreme Court; petition treated as certiorari and referred to Court of Appeals (CA), which on April 2005 reversed and upheld ordinance.
    • Petitioners filed for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Standing
    • Whether the petitioners have direct and personal interest to challenge the ordinance.
    • Applicability of third-party standing and overbreadth doctrines to assert patrons’ equal protection and liberty rights.
  • Constitutional Validity of Ordinance No. 7774
    • Whether the ordinance, as an exercise of police power, violates substantive due process by infringing on the fundamental right to liberty and privacy.
    • Whether it breaches equal protection by arbitrarily restraining business operations and patrons without a reasonable classification.
    • Whether less restrictive means were available to achieve the ordinance’s objectives.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.