Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31227)
Petitioner
Owners of barber shops in the City of Manila challenging the validity of Manila City Ordinance No. 4964 on grounds of deprivation of property and means of livelihood without due process.
Respondent
The City of Manila, through its Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Municipal Board, and Chief of Police, defending the ordinance as a valid exercise of municipal police power.
Key Dates
– Enactment of Ordinance No. 4964: prior to February 1983
– Decision by the Supreme Court (En Banc): February 14, 1983
Applicable Law
– Manila City Ordinance No. 4964 (prohibiting barber shops from conducting massage services in adjacent rooms unless separately licensed)
– Republic Act No. 4065 (governing massage clinics)
– Police power and general welfare clause under the Constitution in effect in 1983
Facts
Petitioners operate barber shops and, without separate licensing under the massage clinic ordinance, offered massage services in rooms adjacent to or within the same building as their barber shops. Enforcement of Ordinance No. 4964 led to criminal prosecutions against several petitioners. They sought declaratory relief, asserting the ordinance deprived them of property and livelihood without due process.
Issue
Whether Ordinance No. 4964 is unconstitutional as a deprivation of property and livelihood without due process of law.
Lower Court’s Disposition
The trial court dismissed the declaratory relief petition, finding it unavailable because criminal proceedings under the same ordinance were already pending or concluded.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Affirmed the dismissal and held that the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power.
Reasoning
- Availability of Declaratory Relief: Petitioners admitted prior criminal cases under the ordinance, so declaratory relief was procedurally barred.
- Substantive Validity: Ordinance No. 4964 advances legitimate police-po
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31227)
Procedural Posture
- Appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing a petition for declaratory relief.
- Petitioners-appellants challenged the constitutionality of Manila Ordinance No. 4964, claiming it deprived them of property (their means of livelihood) without due process.
- Trial court held that declaratory relief was unavailable because criminal prosecutions under the ordinance had already been filed and decided.
Subject Matter: Ordinance No. 4964, Section 1
- Prohibits any barber-shop operator from conducting massage services in any adjacent room(s) of the barber shop or any room(s) in the same building under the same operator.
- Aimed at regulating the operation of massage services in conjunction with barber shops.
Petitioners-Appellants’ Arguments
- Contention: The ordinance effects a deprivation of property and of the means of livelihood without due process of law.
- Sought a judicial declaration that the ordinance is unconstitutional and void.
Respondents-Appellees’ Defenses
- Ordinance No. 4964 is a valid exercise of the City of Manila’s police power under the general welfare clause.
- Two primary objectives:
• To compel payment of