G.R. No.

L-24693, July 31, 1967

Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Asso..petitioners-appellees, v. City Mayor of Manila, respondent-
appellant
Fernando, J.

Facts:
 This case pertains to an appeal filed by Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators from a judgment of RTC for
the prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 enacted by the City of Manila.

 The ordinance imposed various regulations on hotels and motels, including increased fees, registration
requirements, inspection rights, and restrictions on guest acceptance.

 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators argued that these provisions were beyond the powers of the
Municipal Board, unreasonable, and violated the privacy rights.

RTC Ruling:
The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction against enforcing the ordinance and ruled that the ordinance is
unconstitutional, null, and void

 Hence, an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue on Police Power:

Whether or not Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila was a valid exercise of police power.

Supreme Court Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling and reasoned that the ordinance was a legitimate
exercise of police power intended to curb immorality and safeguard public morals.

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of presumption of validity to ordinances. As Justice Malcolm stated,
there is a presumption in favor of validity because the elected officials by the people are presumed to be familiar
with the necessities of their municipality, and the judiciary should not overturn this legislative action without
clear evidence. (instead submitted the evidence, they submitted stipulated of facts)

As also stated in the case of O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., without a factual basis to
challenge the statute, the presumption of validity must prevail.

The Supreme Court dismissed claims that the ordinance violated due process because the ordinance was enacted
to minimize practices harmful to public morals, as evidenced by the increase in prostitution, adultery, and
fornication in the City of Manila.

The increased license fees imposed by the ordinance for hotels and motels, the restriction on leasing rooms, and
other provisions do not violate due process. Municipalities have discretion in imposing license fees, especially for
revenue purposes, and regulating contractual arrangements to promote public welfare and order.

Hence, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and lifted the injunction order.
NOTES:

Preliminary injunction

 It is a legal remedy granted by a court that temporarily restrains a party from engaging in certain actions
pending the final resolution of a case.

Due Process:

 Refers to the fundamental right of individuals to fair treatment, procedural fairness, and legal protection
against arbitrary or indiscriminate governmental actions that may deprive them of life, liberty, or property.
 It encompasses both procedural due process and substantive due process.

Procedural Due Process:

 Procedural due process ensures that individuals are provided with fair and impartial procedures before any
deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs.
 This includes notice of the charges or allegations against them, the opportunity to be heard, the right to
present evidence, and a decision by a competent and impartial tribunal.

Substantive Due Process:

 Substantive due process focuses on the substance or content of laws and regulations, ensuring that they are
reasonable, not arbitrary, and not unduly oppressive.
 It prohibits the government from enacting laws that violate fundamental rights or infringe upon protected
liberties without a legitimate and compelling state interest.