Scribd
Upload
54 views1 page

Ermita Malate Motel vs. City Mayor

The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association filed a petition against Ordinance No. 4760 promulgated by the Municipal Board of Manila, arguing it was unconstitutional. The ordinance increased license fees for motels, required guests to provide personal information, and allowed inspections by authorities. The lower court agreed the ordinance was invalid. However, the Supreme Court held the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power and not a violation of due process. The presumption of an ordinance's validity stands unless clear factual evidence proves otherwise. The ordinance aimed to minimize practices hurtful to public morals like prostitution and suppress illegitimate hotel uses.

Uploaded by

LLAMERA, Julie Ann A.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views1 page

Ermita Malate Motel vs. City Mayor

The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association filed a petition against Ordinance No. 4760 promulgated by the Municipal Board of Manila, arguing it was unconstitutional. The ordinance increased license fees for motels, required guests to provide personal information, and allowed inspections by authorities. The lower court agreed the ordinance was invalid. However, the Supreme Court held the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power and not a violation of due process. The presumption of an ordinance's validity stands unless clear factual evidence proves otherwise. The ordinance aimed to minimize practices hurtful to public morals like prostitution and suppress illegitimate hotel uses.

Uploaded by

LLAMERA, Julie Ann A.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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. VICTOR ALABANZA, intervenor-
appellee.

Facts:

Ordinance No. 4760 was promulgated by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila.
However, Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association and Go Chui files a petition for
prohibition against such ordinance on the ground that it is unconstitutional and void or being
unreasonable and violative of due process because it increases the license fee for the
first and second class motels, guests need to fill up personal information before having
accommodation, the premises and facilities of the hotel will be open for inspection by
the Mayor or Chief of Police which are also violative of the right of privacy and the
guaranty against self-incrimination, classifying motels in two classes, persons below 18
years old are not allowed to be accommodated in such hotels and the owners are not
allowed to lease or rent any room for more that twice every 24 hours. Any violation of
the said ordinance would cause for the automatic cancellation of license of the hotel.
The lower court issued preliminary injunction to prevent the promulgation of the said
ordinance. The Mayor of the City of Manila prays for the dismissal of such petition
because petition fails to state the cause of action, the said ordinance is a valid exercise of
the police power and that only guest or customers have the right to complain regarding
on the invasion of privacy and the guaranty against self- incrimination. However the
lower court declared that such prohibition is proper due to lack of authority of the City
of Manila to regulate motels and that the said ordinance is unconstitutional, therefore
null and void. The respondents appeal to the SC.

Issue:
Whether or not Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process clause.

Held:
No. The said ordinance is not violative of the due process clause. The presumption of validity
must prevail and the judgment against the ordinance set aside. In the case at bar, there were no
factual foundation being laid upon only pleadings and stipulation of facts and these must not
prevail over the presumption. Moreover, the police power is an inherent and plenary power of
the State that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety of society. In this
case, the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power because the enactment was to minimize
certain practices hurtful to public morals such as prostitution, adultery and fornication. The
ordinance was also intended to suppress illegitimate use of hotels.

You might also like