Scribd
Upload
35 views2 pages

City of Manila vs. Laguio CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

LBitz
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
35 views2 pages

City of Manila vs. Laguio CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

LBitz
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/ 2

CITY OF MANILA, Petitioner,

vs.
HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR. and MALATE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.

G.R. No. 118127 April 12, 2005

FACTS:

Private respondent Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) is a corporation engaged in the
business of operating hotels, motels, hostels and lodging houses. MTDC filed a Petition for
Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order with the lower court impleading as defendants, herein petitioners City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo
S. Lim (Lim), Hon. Joselito L. Atienza, and the members of the City Council of Manila (City Council).
MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its prohibited
establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional.

However, petitioners City of Manila and Lim maintained that the City Council had the power to
"prohibit certain forms of entertainment in order to protect the social and moral welfare of the
community" as provided for in Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Local Government Code.

Likewise, petitioners asserted that the Ordinance was enacted by the City Council of Manila to
protect the social and moral welfare of the community in conjunction with its police power as found in
Article III, Section 18(kk) of Republic Act No. 409, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the
City of Manila and that the Ordinance had the presumption of validity; hence, private respondent had
the burden to prove its illegality or unconstitutionality. Moreover, Petitioner claimed that the
Ordinance did not infringe the equal protection clause and cannot be denounced as class legislation
as there existed substantial and real differences between the Ermita-Malate area and other places in
the City of Manila.

Respondent Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. (Judge Laguio) issued an ex-parte temporary
restraining order against the enforcement of the Ordinance and granted the writ of preliminary
injunction prayed for by MTDC. He also rendered judgement declaring Ordinance No. 7783, Series
of 1993, of the City of Manila as null and void, and making permanent the writ of preliminary
injunction that had been issued by this Court against the defendant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Ordinance is Valid.

HELD:

No. Ordinance No. 7783 does not comply with the substantive requirements for an ordinance to be
valid.

The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has held that for an
ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to
enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the
following substantive requirements:

1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;


2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
6) must not be unreasonable.

The police power granted to local government units must always be exercised with utmost
observance of the rights of the people to due process and equal protection of the law. Such power
cannot be exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically as its exercise is subject to a qualification,
limitation or restriction demanded by the respect and regard due to the prescription of the
fundamental law, particularly those forming part of the Bill of Rights. Individual rights, it bears
emphasis, may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate
demands of public interest or public welfare. Due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in
interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty and property.

You might also like