Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24693)
Petitioner Allegations and Relief Sought
Petitioners alleged Ordinance No. 4760 (enacted June 13, 1963; approved June 14, 1963) exceeded municipal powers and violated due process by (inter alia): imposing steep annual license fees (P6,000 for first-class motels; P4,500 for second-class), mandating public lobby registration forms capturing extensive personal data (including residence certificates and passport numbers) and subjecting premises to inspection by city officials, imposing minimum facility requirements for classified motels, prohibiting acceptance of persons under eighteen unless accompanied by parents/guardians, restricting rental of rooms to not more than twice in a 24-hour period, and providing for license cancellation upon subsequent conviction. They sought a writ of prohibition, a preliminary injunction (granted July 6, 1963), and a final judgment declaring the ordinance null and void.
Procedural History and Record
Respondent admitted factual circumstances, licensing status of petitioners, and the ordinance’s provisions but denied its invalidity. Rather than taking testimony, the parties filed a stipulation of facts (September 28, 1964) and submitted memoranda (respondent Jan. 22, 1965; petitioners Feb. 4, 1965). The lower court found the ordinance unconstitutional and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The appeal followed.
Applicable Law
Constitutional standard applied: due process principles under the constitution in force at the time (the pre-1987 constitution applicable to the 1967 decision). The case turned on the relationship between municipal police power and due process, and on established doctrines regarding presumption of constitutionality, municipal licensing authority, freedom of contract limitations, and vagueness challenges.
Principal Issue Presented
Whether Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila violated due process (procedural or substantive) or otherwise was void on its face, thereby justifying the lower court’s declaration of unconstitutionality and the permanent injunction against enforcement.
Standard of Review and Presumption of Validity
The Court emphasized the strong presumption favoring the validity of legislative enactments, including municipal ordinances. When a statute or ordinance is challenged as unreasonable under the police power, factual foundations may condition constitutionality; where the record lacks evidentiary support to overthrow the presumption of validity, the presumption must prevail. Absent a showing that the ordinance is void on its face, courts should not lightly set aside legislative action.
Sufficiency of the Record
Because the parties submitted only a stipulation of facts and memoranda and offered no evidentiary proof to rebut the presumption of constitutionality, the appellate court held that the lower court erred in declaring the ordinance unconstitutional. The absence of a factual foundation in the record rendered the lower court’s sweeping condemnation unsupportable.
Purpose of the Ordinance and Police Power Analysis
The ordinance was enacted expressly to address perceived deterioration of public morals—an increased incidence of prostitution, adultery, and fornication associated with motels—and to deter clandestine uses of transient accommodations. The Court treated this legislative aim as plainly within the scope of the police power to promote public morals, health, safety, peace and general welfare. Given the explanatory note and the municipality’s assessment of an existing social problem, the ordinance was a legitimate police-power measure and not facially invalid.
License Fees and Municipal Discretion
The ordinance substantially increased annual license fees for hotels and motels. The Court reviewed established distinctions among license fees intended for regulation, for restricting non-useful occupations, and for revenue. Municipalities enjoy wide discretion in fixing fees—especially where the fee functions as a privilege tax or regulation over non-useful or morally regulated enterprises. Precedent affords considerable latitude to municipal authorities; mere disproportionality or hardship to existing businesses does not, by itself, render a license fee unconstitutional in the absence of demonstrative proof of arbitrariness or oppression.
Restriction on Leasing Frequency and Freedom of Contract
The ordinance’s prohibition on leasing a room more than twice every 24 hours was analyzed as a valid regulation incident to the police power. The Court rejected the contention that this restriction constituted an undue interference with liberty of contract. The opinion reiterated that liberty under democratic government is not license; the State may impose reasonable restraints on property and contractual freedom to protect public morals and welfare. Because the regulation corresponded to the municipal objective of preventing clandestine immoral use, the restriction was not arbitrary on its face.
Vagueness and Certainty Challenges
Petitioners argued certain provisions were vague (e.g., scope of “companions,” whether restaurant
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-24693)
Nature of the Case and Principal Question
- Petition for prohibition and declaratory relief attacking the validity of Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila.
- Principal legal question presented: whether Ordinance No. 4760 is violative of the due process clause of the Constitution.
- Case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, authored by Justice Fernando, with decision reversing the lower court and lifting the preliminary injunction.
Parties, Capacities and Representations
- Petitioners-Appellees:
- Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc., a non-stock corporation assertedly organized to promote and protect the interests of its 18 member hotels and motels.
- Hotel del Mar, Inc., a member of the association.
- Go Chiu, described as the president and general manager of Hotel del Mar, Inc.
- The petitioners stated they employ not less than 2,500 persons, represent an investment of more than P3 million, are duly licensed businesses, and pay taxes.
- Respondent-Appellant:
- The Honorable City Mayor of Manila, sued in his official capacity as the officer charged with enforcing city ordinances.
- Intervenor-Appellee:
- Victor Alabanza, described in the stipulation as a resident of Baguio City who intervened in the case.
- The record notes the list of the association’s eighteen members (as given in the source): Waldorf Hotel, Hotel Monte Carlo, Golden Gate Motel, Miami Hotel, Palm Spring Hotel, Flamingo Motel, Holiday Motel, Rainbow Motel, Palo Alto Hotel, Paradise Hotel, Mayfair Hotel, Siesta Court, Sun Valley Hotel, Springfield Hotel, New Palace Hotel, Hotel del Mar, Longbeach Hotel and Ritz Motel.
Procedural History and Key Dates
- Ordinance No. 4760 enacted by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila on June 13, 1963; approved June 14, 1963 by Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga acting as Mayor.
- Petition for prohibition filed July 5, 1963 by the petitioners against the City Mayor.
- Lower court issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction on July 6, 1963, ordering the respondent Mayor to refrain from enforcing Ordinance No. 4760 from and after July 8, 1963.
- Respondent filed answer on August 3, 1963 denying unconstitutionality and moving for dissolution of the injunction.
- Parties submitted a stipulation of facts dated September 28, 1964 in lieu of trial evidence.
- Memorandum for respondent filed January 22, 1965; memorandum for petitioners filed February 4, 1965.
- The Supreme Court rendered decision reversing the lower court on July 31, 1967 (G.R. No. L-24693).
- Official Gazette references and subsequent reporting: 127 Phil. 306; 65 OG 3648 (April, 1969); 65 OG 2354 (March, 1969).
Ordinance No. 4760 — General Scope and Amendatory Action
- Ordinance No. 4760 amended sections 661, 662, 668-a, 668-b and 669 of the compilation of the ordinances of the City of Manila and inserted three new sections.
- The ordinance was described as similar to a prior ordinance vetoed by the respondent Mayor (Annex A), with explanatory note by Councilor Herminio Astorga attached (Annex C).
Specific Provisions of Ordinance No. 4760 Challenged by Petitioners
- Licensing and Fees:
- Section 1 imposed significant increases in annual license fees: a P6,000 fee per annum for first-class motels and P4,500 per annum for second-class motels (and a 150% increase for hotels; over 200% increase for motels as noted).
- Registration and Recordkeeping:
- A requirement that owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of a hotel, motel or lodging house must refuse to accept or entertain any guest unless the guest fills out a prescribed registration form in a lobby open to public view at all times and in the presence of such owner, manager or representative.
- Registration form to contain: surname, given name, middle name, date of birth, address, occupation, sex, nationality, length of stay, number of companions in the room (if any), with names, relationships, ages and sex of companions; residence certificate data and passport number if any.
- Certification that the person signing personally filled out the form and affixed signature in the presence of the owner/manager/representative.
- Requirement that registration forms and records be kept and bound together and that premises and facilities be open to inspection by the City Mayor or Chief of Police or their duly authorized representatives.
- Classification and Facility Requirements:
- Section 2 classified motels into two classes and required certain minimum facilities in first-class motels (e.g., telephone in each room, dining room or restaurant, laundry); second-class motels also required to have a dining room (petitioners’ allegation).
- Age and Leasing Restrictions:
- Provision prohibiting acceptance of persons under 18 years old unless accompanied by parent or lawful guardian.
- Provision making it unlawful for owner/manager/keeper/etc. to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours; in all cases full payment to be charged.
- Penalty and License Cancellation:
- Section 4 provided that upon subsequent conviction, the license of the offended party would be automatically cancelled, effectively resulting in destruction of the business and loss of investment (as alleged by petitioners).
Petitioners’ Allegations and Grounds for Relief
- Petitioners asserted the ordinance was:
- Beyond the power of the Municipal Board insofar as it attempted to regulate motels (claiming no reference to motels in the revised charter or other law).
- Section 1 unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable and violative of due process (especially fee increases).
- Registration and inspection requirements of Section 1 unconstitutional and void for being arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive, vague, indefinite and uncertain; alleged invasion of right to privacy and guarantee against self-incrimination.
- Section 2 arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive in classification and facility requirements, including the dining-room requirement for second-class motels.
- Age restriction and leasing frequency prohibition lacking certainty and being unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive.
- Penalty provision (automatic cancellation of license upon subsequent conviction) violative of due process for causing destruction of business and loss of investments.
- Prayer for relief:
- Issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions; declaration that Ordinance No. 4760 is null and void and unenforceable.
Respondent Mayor’s Answer and Contentions
- Admissions:
- Admitted personal circumstances, that petitioners are licensed hotel and motel operators in Manila, and the provisions of the ordinance.
- Denials and Defenses:
- Denied alleged nullity on statutory and constitutional grounds.
- Contended petition failed to state a cause of action.
- Asserted ordinance bears reasonable relation to a proper purpose: to curb immorality — a valid exercise of the police power.
- Argued that only the guests or customers (not the petitioners) could properly complain of invasion of privacy or self-incrimination.
- Asserted the preliminary injunction issued ex parte was contrary to law and prayed for dissolution of injunction and dismissal.
- Emphasized presumption of validity of legislative enactments and the burden on assailants to show unconstitutionality; cited U.S. v. Salaveria and applicable American authorities.
Stipulation of Facts (September 28, 1964)
- Parties’ stipulation admitted the following material facts:
- The petitioners association and Hotel del Mar, Inc. are duly organized under Philippine laws with offices in Manila; Go Chiu is president and general manager; Victor Alabanza is a resident of Baguio City; all have capacity to sue and be sued.
- The respondent Mayor is duly elected and charged with enforcing ordinances.
- Petitioners are duly licensed to operate hotels and motels in Malate and Ermita districts of Manila.
- Ordinance No. 4760 was enacted June 13, 1963 and approved June 14, 1963 by Vice-Ma