Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Case Report

    Uploaded by

    Alfred
    Case digest

    Copyright:

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

    Case Report

    Uploaded by

    Alfred
    4 views2 pages
    Case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4 views2 pages

    Case Report

    Uploaded by

    Alfred
    Case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc., Hotel Del Mar Inc. and Go Chiu vs.

    The
    Honorable City of Manila

    July 31, 1967 Fernando, J.:

    Facts: On July 5, 1963, a petition for prohibition was filed against Ordinance No. 4760(enacted by the
    municipal board of the city of Manila on June 13, 1963 and approved on June 14, 1963) by the
    petitioners, Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association(non-stock corporation dedicated in
    the promotion and protection of the interests of its 18 members operating hotels and motels,
    characterized as legitimate businesses duly licensed by both national and city authorities, regularly
    paying taxes, employing and giving livelihood to not less than 2,500 person and representing an
    investment of more than P3 million) against the respondent Manila City Mayor who was sued in his
    capacity as such "charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila
    and to give necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances."

    The petitioners questioned the validity of the Ordinance No. 4760 because of the following
    provisions which allegedly violates the due process clause:

    1. refraining from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer unless it fills out a prescribed
    form(full name, date of birth, address, occupation, gender, nationality, length of stay, no. of
    companions, etc.) in the lobby in open view;

    2. prohibiting a person of less than 18 years of age from being admitted to such hotels, motels,
    lodging houses, taverns or inns. (unless accompanied by parents or lawful guardians)

    3. increase of annual license tax fee. (6,500 for first-class motels and 4,500 for second-class
    motels) (150% increase for hotels and 200% for motels) (purpose is to discourage establishments of the
    kind from operating for purpose other than legal and at the same time to increase the income of the city
    government.)

    4. making unlawful lease or rent for more than twice every 24 hours and;

    5. automatic cancellation of license for subsequent violation.

    The lower court issued a preliminary injunction and subsequently declared that the said ordinance is
    unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Issues: (1)Whether or not the lower court is correct in
    declaring the ordinance unconstitutional.(2) Whether or not the said ordinance violative of the due
    process clause. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court's decision must be reversed due to
    the absence of any evidence to offset the presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute
    or ordinance. The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The
    councilors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular
    municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action.

    On the second issue, the S.C. said that the ordinance is not violating the due process clause.
    There is no controlling precise definition of due process, however it can be said that it generally
    furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life,
    liberty or property be valid. To satisfy the due process requirement, official action must not outrun the
    bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. Due process is thus hostile to any official action marred
    by lack of reasonableness. The challenged ordinance was enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful
    to public morals due to the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery and fornication in
    Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels. Thus the S.C. reversed the decision of the
    lower court and upheld the validity of Ordinance 4760.

    You might also like