✅

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel

Operators vs. City Mayor, G.R.
No. L-24693, July 31, 1967
ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., HOTEL
DEL MAR INC. and GO CHIU, petitioners-appellees, vs. THE HONORABLE CITY
MAYOR OF MANILA, respondent-appellant
G.R. No. L-24693
July 31, 1967

FACTS:
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association filed a petition for
prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760, alleging Section 1 is unconstitutional and
void for being unreasonable and violative of due process insofar as it would
impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for first-class motels and P4,500.00 for second
class motels; that the provision would require the hotel, motel, or lodging house to
refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest without filling out the prescribed
form with the guest’s personal information.

ISSUE:
Whether Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila violates the due process
clause.

HELD:
YES, Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila violates the due process clause.

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators vs. City Mayor, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967 1
 There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to
minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. The challenged ordinance then
proposes to check the clandestine harboring of transients and guests of these
establishments by requiring these transients and guests to fill up a registration
form, prepared for the purpose, in a lobby open to public view at all times, and by
introducing several other amendatory provisions calculated to shatter the privacy
that characterizes the registration of transients and guests." Moreover, the
increase in the licensed fees was intended to discourage "establishments of the
kind from operating for a purpose other than legal" and at the same time, to
increase "the income of the city government.”
It is an affront to reason to stigmatize an ordinance enacted precisely to meet
what a municipal lawmaking body considers an evil of rather serious proportion an
arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. To be more specific, the Municipal
Board of the City of Manila felt the need for a remedial measure. It provided it with
the enactment of the challenged ordinance. A strong case must be found in the
records, and, as has been set forth, none is even attempted here to attach to an
ordinance of such character the taint of nullity for an alleged failure to meet the
due process requirement. Nor does it lend any semblance even of deceptive
plausibility to petitioners' indictment of Ordinance No. 4760 on due process
grounds to single out such features as the increased fees for motels and hotels,
the curtailment of the area of freedom to contract, and, in certain particulars, its
alleged vagueness.

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators vs. City Mayor, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967 2