White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila

Facts:

White Light Corporation, Titanium Corporation and Sta. Mesa Tourist & Development Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are private companies operating motels and drive-in hotels; the respondent is the City of Manila, represented by Mayor Alfredo S. Lim. The subject is Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 (prohibiting short-time admission, short-time admission rates, and wash‑up rates in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments).

On December 3, 1992, Mayor Lim approved Ordinance No. 7774. On December 15, 1992, Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a declaratory relief action with a prayer for preliminary injunction/TRO in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 9, seeking to declare the Ordinance invalid insofar as it included motels and inns; MTDC alleged authority under P.D. No. 259 to admit customers on a short‑time basis and to charge wash‑up rates for abbreviated stays. On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) moved to intervene; the RTC granted intervention and later permitted MTDC to withdraw as plaintiff.

The RTC issued a TRO on January 14, 1993, and a writ of preliminary injunction on February 8, 1993, enjoining the City from enforcing the Ordinance. On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 7774 null and void and made the injunction permanent, reasoning that the Ordinance struck at personal liberty and unlawfully impeded private enterprise. The City filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. 112471), which the Court treated as a petition for certiorari and referred to the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 33316).

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and upheld the Ordinance as a valid exercise of police power (finding no infringement of privacy or freedom of movement and accepting the Ordinance's morality objective under Local Government Code, Sec. 458(4)(iv) and Revised Manila Charter, Art. III, Sec. 18(kk)). The present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 wa...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Do the petitioners have standing to assert the constitutional rights (liberty/privacy/equal protection) of their patrons in challenging the Ordinance?
• Does Ordinance No. 7774, insofar as it prohibits short‑time admissions and wash‑up rates, violate substantive due process/right to liberty and thus exceed ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)