Ermita Malate Hotel Vs City of Manila Digest

Ermita Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association v.
City
of Manila [GR L-24693, 31 July 1967]
Ermita Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association v. City of Manila [GR L-24693, 31 July 1967]
En Banc, Fernando (J): 7 concur, 2 on leave
Facts: On July 5, 1963 the petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 was filed by Ermita-Malate
Hotel and Motel Operators Association, one of its members, Hotel del Mar Inc., and Go Chiu, who is "the
latter’s president and general manager" against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who was sued in
his capacity as such "charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila
and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances." It was
alleged that the petitioner non-stock corporation is dedicated to the promotion and protection of the interest
of its eighteen (18) members "operating hotels and motels, characterized as legitimate businesses duly
licensed by both national and city authorities, regularly paying taxes, employing and giving livelihood to not
less than 2,500 person and representing an investment of more than P3 million." It was then alleged that on
June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760, approved on June
14, 1963 by the then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, who was at the time acting as Mayor of the City of
Manila. There was the assertion of its being beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila
to enact insofar as it would regulate motels, on the ground that in the revised charter of the City of Manila or
in any other law. Sec. 1: It was a violation of privacy and it was against self-incrimination and that is why it is
unconstitutional and void. Sec. 2: classifying rooms and prohibiting persons under 18 to be given any room
without the company of parents. On August 3, 1963 an answer was filed regarding the respondent mayor
that the petitioners are licensed to engage in the hotel or motel business in the City of Manila, of the
provisions of the cited Ordinance but a denial of its alleged nullity, whether on statutory or constitutional
grounds the petition did fail to state a cause of action and that the challenged ordinance bears a reasonable
relation, to a proper purpose, which is to curb immorality, a valid and proper exercise of the police power
and that only the guests or customers not before the court could complain of the alleged invasion of the right
to privacy and the guaranty against self incrimination, with the assertion that the issuance of the preliminary
injunction ex parte was contrary to law, respondent Mayor prayed for, its dissolution and the dismissal of the
petition.
Issue: WON Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process clause
Ruling: The lower court held that it is and adjudged it "unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and void." Nor
does the restriction on the freedom to contract, insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it unlawful for the
owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel, motel, lodging house, tavern,
common inn or the like, to lease or rent room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours, with a
proviso that in all cases full payment shall be charged, call for a different conclusion. Again, such a limitation
cannot be viewed as a transgression against the command of due process. It is neither unreasonable nor
arbitrary. The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the
common good x x x The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of the public health, or of the
public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power." 28The policy of laissez
faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by the government of the right of intervention even in
contractual relations affected with public interest. 31 What may be stressed sufficiently is that if the liberty
involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of governmental acts is much
more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects at the most rights of property, the
permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.The attack against the validity of the challenged ordinance
cannot be considered a success.

Ermita Malate Hotel Vs City of Manila Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ermita Malate Hotel Vs City of Manila Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ermita Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association v.

You might also like