White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila GR No.

122846 January 20, 2009 Tinga, J:

Facts: This is a petition for the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding this case. On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo Lim signed into law an ordinance entitled An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-time Admission, Short-time Admission Rates, and Wash-up Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila. On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9 and prayed that the Ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional. On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation, Titanium Corporation and Sta. Mesa Tourist Development Corporation filed a motion to intervene, which was granted by the RTC. MTDC moved to withdrawn as plaintiff which was also granted by the RTC. On January 14, 1993, the RTC issued a TRO directing the City to cease and desist from enforcing the Ordinance. On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. The City then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court referred the same to the Court of Appeals. The city asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Local Government Code and the Revised Manila Charter. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance. Hence,this petition.

Issue: Whether the Ordinance is constitutional

Ruling: The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not to eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and the like. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of police power. Yet the desirability of these ends does not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. However well-intentioned the Ordinance maybe, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricts the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, is REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.