Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Velasco Vs Villegas

    Uploaded by

    Rian Lee Tiangco
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order dismissing a suit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance passed by the City of Manila. The ordinance prohibited barbershops from conducting massage services in adjacent rooms, finding it was a valid exercise of police power aimed at imposing proper licensing fees and preventing immorality. While petitioners argued it deprived them of livelihood, the Court found declaratory relief unavailable as criminal cases over violations had already been filed and decided. Prior jurisprudence also established a liberal interpretation of a municipality's general welfare clause in enacting police power measures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Velasco Vs Villegas

    Uploaded by

    Rian Lee Tiangco
    26 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order dismissing a suit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance passed by the City of Manila. The ordinance prohibited barbershops from conducting massage services in adjacent rooms, finding it was a valid exercise of police power aimed at imposing proper licensing fees and preventing immorality. While petitioners argued it deprived them of livelihood, the Court found declaratory relief unavailable as criminal cases over violations had already been filed and decided. Prior jurisprudence also established a liberal interpretation of a municipality's general welfare clause in enacting police power measures.

    Original Description:

    Velasco vs Villegas

    Original Title

    Velasco vs Villegas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order dismissing a suit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance passed by the City of Manila. The ordinance prohibited barbershops from conducting massage services in adjacent rooms, finding it was a valid exercise of police power aimed at imposing proper licensing fees and preventing immorality. While petitioners argued it deprived them of livelihood, the Court found declaratory relief unavailable as criminal cases over violations had already been filed and decided. Prior jurisprudence also established a liberal interpretation of a municipality's general welfare clause in enacting police power measures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views1 page

    Velasco Vs Villegas

    Uploaded by

    Rian Lee Tiangco
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order dismissing a suit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance passed by the City of Manila. The ordinance prohibited barbershops from conducting massage services in adjacent rooms, finding it was a valid exercise of police power aimed at imposing proper licensing fees and preventing immorality. While petitioners argued it deprived them of livelihood, the Court found declaratory relief unavailable as criminal cases over violations had already been filed and decided. Prior jurisprudence also established a liberal interpretation of a municipality's general welfare clause in enacting police power measures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Republic of the Philippines WHEREFORE, the appealed order of the lower court is affirmed. No costs.

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-24153 February 14, 1983

    TOMAS VELASCO, LOURDES RAMIREZ, SY PIN, EDMUNDO UNSON, APOLONIA RAMIREZ and
    LOURDES LOMIBAO, as component members of the STA. CRUZ BARBERSHOP ASSOCIATION,
    in their own behalf and in representation of the other owners of barbershops in the City of Manila,
    petitioners-appellants,
    vs.
    HON. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, City Mayor of Manila, HON. HERMINIO A. ASTORGA, Vice-Mayor
    and Presiding Officer of the Municipal Board in relation to Republic Act 4065, THE MUNICIPAL
    BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA and EDUARDO QUINTOS SR., Chief of Police of the City of
    Manila, respondents-appellees.

    Leonardo L. Arguelles for respondent-appellant.

    FERNANDO, C.J.:

    This is an appeal from an order of the lower court dismissing a suit for declaratory relief challenging the
    constitutionality based on Ordinance No. 4964 of the City of Manila, the contention being that it amounts
    to a deprivation of property of petitioners-appellants of their means of livelihood without due process of
    law. The assailed ordinance is worded thus: "It shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to
    conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room or rooms of said
    barber shop, or in any room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long
    as the operator of the barber shop and the room where massaging is conducted is the same person." 1
    As noted in the appealed order, petitioners-appellants admitted that criminal cases for the violation of this
    ordinance had been previously filed and decided. The lower court, therefore, held that a petition for
    declaratory relief did not lie, its availability being dependent on there being as yet no case involving such
    issue having been filed. 2

    Even if such were not the case, the attack against the validity cannot succeed. As pointed out in the brief
    of respondents-appellees, it is a police power measure. The objectives behind its enactment are: "(1) To
    be able to impose payment of the license fee for engaging in the business of massage clinic under
    Ordinance No. 3659 as amended by Ordinance 4767, an entirely different measure than the ordinance
    regulating the business of barbershops and, (2) in order to forestall possible immorality which might grow
    out of the construction of separate rooms for massage of customers." 3 This Court has been most liberal
    in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause. As far back as U.S. v. Salaveria, 4 a 1918
    decision, this Court through Justice Malcolm made clear the significance and scope of such a clause,
    which "delegates in statutory form the police power to a municipality. As above stated, this clause has
    been given wide application by municipal authorities and has in its relation to the particular circumstances
    of the case been liberally construed by the courts. Such, it is well to really is the progressive view of
    Philippine jurisprudence." 5 As it was then, so it has continued to be. 6 There is no showing, therefore, of
    the unconstitutionality of such ordinance.

    You might also like