Lester D. Mojado Ms. Carla A.

Abenilla

BSTM – 2nd Yr.

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA

TOURIST AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION petitioner v. CITY OF MANILA

I. Facts

1. 03 Dec 1992- Mayor Alfredo Lim passed an Ordinance which penalized

hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments

that offer short time admission (stay for less than 12 hours) and “wash up”

rates (stay for only 3 hours). Any violation would result to either P5,000 or

imprisonment for less that 1 year or both.

2. 15 Dec 1992- Malate Tourist and Development Corporation filed a complaint

of declaratory relief:

a. Praying for an injunction/TRO to be issued, and

b. Praying to have the Ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional.

3. 21 Dec 1992- White Light Corporation, Titanium Corporation and Sta. Mesa

Tourist and Development Corporation filed a motion to intervene in support

of MTDC’s petition on the ground that the Ordinance affected their business

interests as they operate several drive-in hotels and motels in Manila.

4. The petitioners agreed to submit the case for judgment since it was a based

on a purely legal question.

5. RTC declared the Ordinance null and void because

a. it was against personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the

Constitution
 b. it went against encouraging private enterprises and the incentive to

need investment.

6. The Ordinance was similar to another Ordinance annulled in another case,

wherein what it sought to prevent could easily be circumvented.

7. The City filed a petition for review on certiorari with Supreme Court, which

the latter treated as a petition for certiorari and referred it to Court of

Appeals.

8. The City argued that the Ordinance was a valid exercise of police power

under Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code and Art. 3, Sec.

18(kk) of the Revised Manila Charter.

9. Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates

right to privacy and the freedom of movement. Furthermore, it is an invalid

exercise of police power because it was unreasonable and oppressive

interference in their business.

10. Court of Appeal reversed RTC’s decision and found it to be constitutional for

the following reasons:

a. The Ordinance didn’t violate the right to privacy or freedom to

movement because it only penalizes a small group, the owners or

operators of establishments that offer short time stays.

b. Police power is limited only by having a lawful object obtained

through a lawful method, which what the Ordinance satisfied.

c. The adverse effect to such establishments is justified by the well-

being of its constituents.

d. As ruled in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of

Manila, liberty is regulated by the law.

II. Issue

Whether or not Ordinance No. 7774 of Manila is a valid exercise of police power

III. Judged ruled for the defendant

 In view of all the foregoing, Ordinance No. 7774 of the City of Manila is

hereby declared null and void.

 Accordingly, the preliminary injunction here to for issued is hereby made

permanent.

IV. Reasoning

The Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of wash rate depriving patrons of a

product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another

constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as police power

measure. It must appear that the interest of the public, generally, as

distinguished from those of particular class, require an interference with private

rights and that the means employed be reasonably necessary for the

accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It

must be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose

less intrusive of the private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable

relation must exist between the purpose of the measure and the means

employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the

public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not

be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. Lacking a concurrence of these requisites,

the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private

rights.