Parayno vs Jovellanos gasoline filling station as defined in Article III, Section 21 of the

G.R. No. 148408 zoning code and not as a service station as differently defined under
Subject: Public Corporation Article 42 of the said official zoning code;”
Doctrine: Police power The foregoing were judicial admissions which were conclusive on the
Facts: municipality, the party making them. hence, because of the distinct
Petitioner was the owner of a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, and definite meanings alluded to the two terms by the zoning
Pangasinan. In 1989, some residents of Calasiao petitioned the ordinance, respondents could not insist that “gasoline service station”
Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of said municipality for the closure or under Section 44 necessarily included “gasoline filling station” under
transfer of the station to another location. The matter was referred to Section 21. Indeed, the activities undertaken in a “gas service station”
the Municipal Engineer, Chief of Police, Municipal Health Officer and did not automatically embrace those in a “gas filling station.”
the Bureau of Fire Protection for investigation. Upon their advise, the As for the main issue, the court held that the respondent municipality
Sangguniang Bayan recommended to the Mayor the closure or transfer invalidly used its police powers in ordering the closure/transfer of
of location of petitioner’s gasoline station. In Resolution No. 50, it petitioner’s gasoline station. While it had, under RA 7160, the power
declared that the existing gasoline station is a blatant violation and to take actions and enact measures to promote the health and general
disregard of existing law. welfare of its constituents, it should have given due deference to the
According to the Resolution, 1) the gasoline filling station is in law and the rights of petitioner.
violation of The Official Zoning Code of Calasiao, Art. 6, Section 44, A local government is considered to have properly exercised its police
the nearest school building which is San Miguel Elementary School powers only when the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of
and church, the distances are less than 100 meters. (No neighbors were the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
called as witnesses when actual measurements were done by HLURB require the interference of the State and (2) the means employed are
Staff, Baguio City dated 22 June 1989); 2) it remains in thickly reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be
populated area with commercial/residential buildings, houses closed accomplished and not unduly oppressive. The first requirement refers
(sic) to each other which still endangers the lives and safety of the to the equal protection clause and the second, to the due process clause
people in case of fire; 3) residents of our barangay always complain of of the Constitution.
the irritating smell of gasoline most of the time especially during gas Respondent municipality failed to comply with the due process clause
filling which tend to expose residents to illness, and 4) It hampers the when it passed Resolution No. 50. While it maintained that the
flow of traffic. gasoline filling station of petitioner was less than 100 meters from the
Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the resolution but was nearest public school and church, the records do not show that it even
denied by the SB. Hence she filed a case before the RTC claiming that attempted to measure the distance, notwithstanding that such distance
the gasoline filling station was not covered under Sec 44 of the was crucial in determining whether there was an actual violation of
mentioned law but is under Sec 21. Case was denied by the court and Section 44. The different local offices that respondent municipality
by the CA. Hence this appeal. tapped to conduct an investigation never conducted such measurement
ISSUE: Whether or not the closure/transfer of her gasoline filling either.
station by respondent municipality was an invalid exercise of the Moreover, petitioner’s business could not be considered a nuisance
latter’s police powers which respondent municipality could summarily abate in the guise of
HELD: exercising its police powers. The abatement of a nuisance without
The respondent is barred from denying their previous claim that the judicial proceedings is possible only if it is a nuisance per se. A gas
gasoline filling station is not under Sec 44. The Counsel in fact station is not a nuisance per se or one affecting the immediate safety of
admitted that : “That the business of the petitioner [was] one of a persons and property, hence, it cannot be closed down or transferred
summarily to another location. City of Batangas Exceeded its Powers
On the alleged hazardous effects of the gasoline station to the lives and
properties of the people of Calasiao, we again note: “Hence, the Board The Supreme Court said that the RTC was correct and that the
is inclined to believe that the project being hazardous to life and CA erred in its decision. LGUs do not have the power to
property is more perceived than factual. For, after all, even the Fire regulate the operation of CATVs since the only agency with the
Station Commander.. recommended “to build such buildings after power to do so is the National Telecommunications
conform (sic) all the requirements of PP 1185.” It is further alleged by
Commission as contained in Executive Order 205 of then
the complainants that the proposed location is “in the heart of the
thickly populated residential area of Calasiao.” Again, findings of the President Corazon Aquino and Executive Order 436 of then
[HLURB] staff negate the allegations as the same is within a President Fidel Ramos. Although LGUs have been granted the
designated Business/Commercial Zone per the Zoning Ordinance. power to enact its own ordinances and resolutions for the
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed promotion of the General Welfare, such enactments cannot
resolution of the Court of the Appeals is REVERSED and SET contravene the provisions of laws enacted by the national
ASIDE. Respondent Municipality of Calasiao is hereby directed to legislature. The SC said: “…it is appropriate to stress that where
cease and desist from enforcing Resolution No. 50 against petitioner
the state legislature has made provision for the regulation of
insofar as it seeks to close down or transfer her gasoline station to
another location. conduct, it has manifested its intention that the subject matter
shall be fully covered by the statute, and that a municipality,
under its general powers, cannot regulate the same conduct.”
Batangas CATV vs. CA (Batangas CATV vs. CA, G.R. 138810, 29 September 2004) This is
not to clip the power of the LGU to enact ordinances for the
The city of Batangas passed an ordinance requiring CATV (cable
promotion of the general welfare but only that they must
television) operators to apply for a permit from the City conform to limits of the power granted them and that their
Government before operating, putting up structures, and fixing
enactments must be consisted with those of the national
or increasing rates. When the Batangas CATV increased its rate, legislature. “It is a fundamental principle that municipal
the City Mayor threatened to cancel the permit of the CATV
ordinances are inferior in status and subordinate to the laws of
company if it did not seek the permission of the Sanggunian to the state. An ordinance in conflict with a state law of general
increase its rates. Batangas CATV filed before the Regional Trial
character and statewide application is universally held to be
Court a petition for injunction alleging that the Sanggunian has invalid. The principle is frequently expressed in the declaration
no authority to regulate the rates of CATV companies. The RTC
that municipal authorities, under a general grant of power,
granted the petition and declared that indeed, regulation of cannot adopt ordinances which infringe the spirit of a state law
CATV operations is beyond the power of the Sanggunian. The
or repugnant to the general policy of the state. In every power
City of Batangas then went to the Court of Appeals seeking to to pass ordinances given to a municipality, there is an implied
reverse the RTC decision. The CA reversed the RTC decision
restriction that the ordinances shall be consistent with the
which was also elevated to the Supreme Court on the issue of general law.” With these the SC declared the resolution of the
whether local governments have the power to regulate the
City of Batangas regulating the rates of CATV as invalid.
operation of CATVs.
delegate this power to the President and
administrative boards. Once delegated, the agents
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY can exercise only such legislative powers as are
vs. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC conferred on them by the national lawmaking body.
No. 135962 | 2000, March 27
PUNO, J. It will be noted that the powers of the MMDA are limited to
Facts: the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation,
            Petitioner filed a review of certiorari on the decision implementation, preparation, management, monitoring,
of the CA. Petitioner, a government agency tasked to setting of policies, installation of a system and
provide basic services in Metro Manila issued a notice administration. There is no syllable in R.A. No. 7924 that
dated Dec. 22 1995 requesting the use of Neptune St. and grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.
open such to public vehicular traffic starting Jan 2 1996. Bel government.—Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of
Air Village Association, a non stock, non-profit corporation government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that
whose members are homeowners from the village, is the given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate
registered owner of Neptune St. administrative rules and regulations in the implementation
            Jan 2 1996, BAVA instituted an action against of the MMDA’s functions.
petitioner before the RTC of Makati for injunction and a It is thus beyond doubt that the MMDA is not a local
temporary restraining order which was issued by the court government unit or a public corporation endowed with
the flowing day. RTC denied the issuance of a preliminary legislative power. Clearly then, the MMC under P.D. No.
injunction which was reversed by the CA hence the 824 is not the same entity as the MMDA under R.A. No.
petition. 7924. Unlike the MMC, the MMDA has no power to enact
Issue: ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the local
government units, acting through their respective
1. Whether or not the CA erred in its decision to grant a legislative councils, that possess legislative power and
preliminary injunction police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or
Ratio: resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence,
its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the
1. the SC defined police power as The power is plenary
respondent Court of Appeals did not err in so ruling.
and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and
justifying measures for public health, public safety,
public morals, and the general welfare. Although such Dela Cruz v Paras
power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature G.R. No. L-42571-72 July 25, 1983
Fernando, CJ:
it cannot be exercised by any group or body with
legislative power thus the National Legislature may Facts:
1.  Assailed was the validity of an ordinance which prohibit the operation of night and improve the morals, in the language of the Administrative Code, such
clubs. Petitioners contended that the ordinance is invalid,  tainted with nullity, competence extending to all "the great public needs.
the municipality being devoid of power to prohibit a lawful business,
occupation or calling. Petitioners at the same time alleging that their rights to 2.   In accordance with the well-settled principle of constitutional construction that
due process and equal protection of the laws were violated as the licenses between two possible interpretations by one of which it will be free from
previously given to them was in effect withdrawn without judicial hearing. constitutional infirmity and by the other tainted by such grave defect, the
former is to be preferred. A construction that would save rather than one that
2.  RA 938, as amended, was originally enacted on June 20, 1953. It is entitled: "An would affix the seal of doom certainly commends itself.
Act Granting Municipal or City Boards and Councils the Power to Regulate the
Establishments, Maintenance and Operation of Certain Places of Amusement 3.  Under the Local Govt Code, it is clear that municipal corporations cannot prohibit
within Their Respective Territorial Jurisdictions.'  the operation of night clubs. They may be regulated, but not prevented from
carrying on their business. It would be, therefore, an exercise in futility if the
The first section reads, "The municipal or city board or council of each chartered decision under review were sustained. All that petitioners would have to do is
city shall have the power to regulate by ordinance the establishment, to apply once more for licenses to operate night clubs. A refusal to grant
maintenance and operation of night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools, pavilions, licenses, because no such businesses could legally open, would be subject to
cockpits, bars, saloons, bowling alleys, billiard pools, and other similar places of judicial correction. That is to comply with the legislative will to allow the
amusement within its territorial jurisdiction: operation and continued existence of night clubs subject to appropriate
On May 21, 1954, the first section was amended to include not merely "the regulations. In the meanwhile, to compel petitioners to close their
power to regulate, but likewise "Prohibit ... " The title, however, remained the establishments, the necessary result of an affirmance, would amount to no
same. It is worded exactly as RA 938. more than a temporary termination of their business.

3.  As thus amended, if only the said portion of the Act was considered, a municipal 4.  Herein what was involved is a measure not embraced within the regulatory
council may go as far as to prohibit the operation of night clubs. The title was power but an exercise of an assumed power to prohibit. 
not in any way altered. It was not changed one bit. The exact wording was
followed. The power granted remains that of regulation, not prohibition.

4.   Petitioners contended that RA 938 which prohibits the operation of night clubs G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995
would give rise to a constitutional question. The lower court upheld the
constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 84 and dismissed the cases. HON. ALFREDO S. LIM, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila,
Hence this petition for certiorari by way of appeal.
and the City of Manila, petitioners,
ISSUE: Whether or not the ordinance is valid
vs.
HON. FELIPE G. PACQUING, as Judge, branch 40, Regional
NO. It is unconstitutional. It undoubtly involves  a measure not embraced within Trial Court of Manila and ASSOCIATED CORPORATION,
the regulatory power but an exercise of an assumed power to prohibit.  respondents.

1.  The Constitution mandates: "Every bill shall embrace only one subject which Facts:
shall be expressed in the title thereof. "Since there is no dispute as the title
limits the power to regulating, not prohibiting, it would result in the statute The petition was dismissed by the First Division of this Court on
being invalid if, as was done by the Municipality of Bocaue, the operation of a 01 September 1994 based on a finding that there was "no
night club was prohibited. There is a wide gap between the exercise of a abuse of discretion, much less lack of or excess of jurisdiction,
regulatory power "to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity,
on the part of respondent judge [Pacquing]", in issuing the
questioned orders. Judge Pacquing had earlier issued in Civil No.
Case No. 88-45660, RTC of Manila, Branch 40, the following
orders which were assailed by the Mayor of the City of Manila, It is clear from the foregoing that Congress did not delegate to
Hon. Alfredo S. Lim: the City of Manila the power "to franchise" wagers or betting,
including the jai-alai, but retained for itself such power "to
(1) order directing Manila mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue the franchise". What Congress delegated to the City of Manila in
permit/license to operate the jai-alai in favor of Associated Rep. Act No. 409, with respect to wagers or betting, was the
Development Corporation (ADC). power to "license, permit, or regulate" which therefore means
that a license or permit issued by the City of Manila to operate a
(2) order directing mayor Lim to explain why he should not be wager or betting activity, such as the jai-alai where bets are
cited for contempt for non-compliance with the order dated 28 accepted, would not amount to something meaningful UNLESS
March 1994. the holder of the permit or license was also FRANCHISED by
the national government to so operate. Moreover, even this
(3) order dated 20 April 1994 reiterating the previous order power to license, permit, or regulate wagers or betting on jai-alai
directing Mayor Lim to immediately issue the permit/license to was removed from local governments, including the City of
Associated Development Corporation (ADC). Manila, and transferred to the GAB on 1 January 1951 by
Executive Order No. 392. The net result is that the authority to
The order dated 28 march 1994 was in turn issued upon motion grant franchises for the operation of jai-alai frontons is in
by ADC for execution of a final judgment rendered on 9 Congress, while the regulatory function is vested in the GAB.
September 1988 which ordered the Manila Mayor to
immediately issue to ADC the permit/license to operate the jai-
alai in Manila, under Manila Ordinance No. 7065.
Therefore, to the facts of this case, since ADC has no franchise
Subsequently, also in G.R. No. 115044, the Republic of the from Congress to operate the jai-alai, it may not so operate
Philippines, through the Games and Amusements Board, filed a even if its has a license or permit from the City Mayor to operate
"Motion for Intervention; for Leave to File a Motion for the jai-alai in the City of Manila.
reconsideration in Intervention; and to Refer the case to the
Court En Banc" and later a "Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention and to
Admit Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration-in- WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, judgment is hereby
Intervention". rendered:

ISSUE: 1. allowing the Republic of the Philippines to

intervene in G.R. No. 115044.
Whether or not the Associated Development Corporation has a
valid and subsisting franchise to maintain and operate the jai- 2. declaring Presidential Decree No. 771 valid and
alai; constitutional.

HELD:
3. declaring that respondent Associated
Development corporation (ADC) does not possess Held: The ordinance is under neither and thus unconstitutional. Petition
the required congressional franchise to operate granted.
and conduct the jai-alai under Republic Act No. Ratio:
954 and Presidential Decree No. 771. 1. Kwong Sing v. City of Manila- the word "regulate" was interpreted to
include the power to control, to govern and to restrain, it would seem that
4. setting aside the writs of preliminary injunction under its power to regulate places of exhibitions and amusement, the
and preliminary mandatory injunction issued by Municipal Board of the City of Butuan could make proper police
respondent Judge Vetino Reyes in civil Case No. regulations as to the mode in which the business shall be exercised.
94-71656. In this jurisdiction, it is already settled that the operation of theaters,
cinematographs and other places of public exhibition are subject to
regulation by the municipal council in the exercise of delegated police
SO ORDERED. power by the local government.
People v. Chan- an ordinance of the City of Manila prohibiting first run
cinematographs from selling tickets beyond their seating capacity was
Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-38429 upheld as constitutional for being a valid exercise of police power.
The City of Butuan, apparently realizing that it has no authority to enact
June 30, 1988 the ordinance in question under its power to regulate embodied in
Section 15(n), now invokes the police power as delegated to it under the
Facts: general welfare clause to justify the enactment of said ordinance
Petitioners, theater owners, assailed the constitutionality of Ordinance To invoke the exercise of police power, not only must it appear that the
No. 640 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan on April 21, interest of the public generally requires an interference with private rights,
1969. This called for a reduction to ½ of the ticket price given to minors but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for
from 7-12 years old. There was a fine from 200-600 pesos or a 2-6 month the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
imprisonment individuals.
The complaint was issued in the trial court. A TRO was then issued to The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest,
prevent the law from being enforced.  The respondent court entered its arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and
decision declaring the law valid. unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, the
Petitioners attack the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police power is not
on the grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid exercise of police final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.
power. Petitioners contend that Ordinance No. 640 is not within the Petitioners maintain that Ordinance No. 640 violates the due process
power of' the Municipal Board to enact as provided for in Section 15(n) of clause of the Constitution for being oppressive, unfair, unjust,
Republic Act No. 523 where it states that the Muncipal board can only fix confiscatory, and an undue restraint of trade, and violative of the right of
license fees for theaters and not admission rates. persons to enter into contracts, considering that the theater owners are
The respondent attempts to justify the enactment of the ordinance by bound under a contract with the film owners for just admission prices for
invoking the general welfare clause embodied in Section 15 (nn) of the general admission, balcony and lodge.
cited law. Homeowners Association- the exercise of police power is necessarily
subject to a qualification, limitation or restriction demanded by the regard,
Issue: the respect and the obedience due to the prescriptions of the
Does this power to regulate include the authority to interfere in the fixing fundamental law
of prices of admission to these places of exhibition and amusement The court agreed with petitioners that the ordinance is not justified by any
whether under its general grant of power or under the general welfare necessity for the public interest. The police power legislation must be
clause as invoked by the City?
firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation however, that theaters and exhibitions are not affected with public
must exist between purposes and means. interest even to a certain degree. Motion pictures have been considered
The evident purpose of the ordinance is to help ease the burden of cost important both as a medium for the communication of Ideas and
on the part of parents who have to shell out the same amount of money expression of the artistic impulse. Their effects on the perceptions by our
for the admission of their children, as they would for themselves. A people of issues and public officials or public figures as well as the
reduction in the price of admission would mean corresponding savings prevailing cultural traits are considerable.
for the parents; however, the petitioners are the ones made to bear the While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that
cost of these savings. The ordinance does not only make the petitioners such regulation must be within the bounds of reason, that is, the
suffer the loss of earnings but it likewise penalizes them for failure to regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions cannot be
comply with it. Furthermore, as petitioners point out, there will be difficulty oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the business or
in its implementation because as already experienced by petitioners calling subject of regulation. A lawful business or calling may not, under
since the effectivity of the ordinance, children over 12 years of age tried the guise of regulation, be unreasonably interfered with even by the
to pass off their age as below 12 years in order to avail of the benefit of exercise of police power.
the ordinance. The ordinance does not provide a safeguard against this A police measure for the regulation of the conduct, control and operation
undesirable practice and as such, the respondent City of Butuan now of a business should not encroach upon the legitimate and lawful
suggests that birth certificates be exhibited by movie house patrons to exercise by the citizens of their property rights. 34 The right of the owner
prove the age of children. This is, however, not at all practicable. We can to fix a price at which his property shall be sold or used is an inherent
see that the ordinance is clearly unreasonable if not unduly oppressive attribute of the property itself and, as such, within the protection of the
upon the business of petitioners. Moreover, there is due process clause.
no discernible relation between the ordinance and the promotion of public Although the presumption is always in favor of the validity or
health, safety, morals and the general welfare. reasonableness of the ordinance, such presumption must nevertheless
Respondent further alleges that by charging the full price, the children are be set aside when the invalidity or unreasonableness appears on the
being exploited by movie house operators. We fail to see how the face of the ordinance itself or is established by proper evidence
children are exploited if they pay the full price of admission. They are
treated with the same quality of entertainment as the adults. Ermita Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association v. City of Manila [GR L-
Moreover, as a logical consequence of the ordinance, movie house and 24693, 31 July 1967]
theater operators will be discouraged from exhibiting wholesome movies
for general patronage, much less children's pictures if only to avoid Facts: On 13 June 1963, Ordinance 4760 was issued by the municipal board of the
City of Manila and approved by Vice Mayor Herminio Astorga, who was at the time
compliance with the ordinance and still earn profits for themselves. acting Mayor of the City of Manila. The ordinance (1) imposes a P6,000.00 fee per
A theater ticket has been described to be either a mere license, annum for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels; (2) requires the
revocable at the will of the proprietor of the theater or it may be evidence owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of a hotel, motel, or
of a contract whereby, for a valuable consideration, the purchaser has lodging house to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer or
acquired the right to enter the theater and observe the performance on letting any room or other quarter to any person or persons without his filling up the
condition that he behaves properly.  Such ticket, therefore, represents a prescribed form in a lobby open to public view at all times and in his presence,
wherein the surname, given name and middle name, the date of birth, the address,
right, Positive or conditional, as the case may be, according to the terms the occupation, the sex, the nationality, the length of stay and the number of
of the original contract of sale. This right is clearly a right of property. The companions in the room, if any, with the name, relationship, age and sex would be
ticket which represents that right is also, necessarily, a species of specified, with data furnished as to his residence certificate as well as his passport
property. As such, the owner thereof, in the absence of any condition to number, if any, coupled with a certification that a person signing such form has
the contrary in the contract by which he obtained it, has the clear right personally filled it up and affixed his signature in the presence of such owner,
to dispose of it, to sell it to whom he pleases and at such price as he manager, keeper or duly authorized representative, with such registration forms and
records kept and bound together; (3) provides that the premises and facilities of such
can obtain. hotels, motels and lodging houses would be open for inspection either by the City
In no sense could theaters be considered public utilities. The State has Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their duly authorized representatives. The ordinance
not found it appropriate as a national policy to interfere with also classified motels into two classes and required the maintenance of certain
the admission prices to these performances. This does not mean minimum facilities in first class motels such as a telephone in each room, a dining
room or restaurant and laundry; while second class motels are required to have a to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health,
dining room. It prohibited a person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such and prosperity of the state. 
hotels, motels, lodging houses, tavern or common inn unless accompanied by
parents or a lawful guardian and made it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or WHITE LIGHT vs CITY of MANILA (2009)
duly authorized representative of such establishments to lease any room or portion
thereof more than twice every 24 hours. It provided a penalty of automatic
cancellation of the license of the offended party in case of conviction. On 5 July 1963,
the Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association (EMHMOA), its member
Hotel del Mar, and a certain Go Chiu filed a petition for prohibition against the mayor Facts: On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into
of the City of Manila in his capacity as he is charged with the general power and duty
to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the
law Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled “An Ordinance
faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances. There was a plea for the Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and
issuance of preliminary injunction and for a final judgment declaring the above Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses,
ordinance null and void and unenforceable. The lower court on 6 July 1963 issued a
writ of preliminary injunction ordering the Mayor to refrain from enforcing said Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila.”
Ordinance 4760 from and after 8 July 1963. After the submission of the memoranda, The ordinance sanctions any person or corporation who will allow the
ruled that the City of Manila lack authority to regulate motels and rendering Ordinance
4760 unconstitutional and therefore null and void. It made permanent the preliminary
admission and charging of room rates for less than 12 hours or the
injunction issued by the Mayor and his agents to restrain him from enforcing the renting of rooms more than twice a day.
ordinance. The Mayor of Manila appealed to the Supreme Court.
The petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation
Issue: Whether the regulations imposed on motels and hotels (increasing license
fees, partially restricting the freedom to contract, and restraining the liberty of
(TC), and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC),
individuals) is valid and/or constitutional. who own and operate several hotels and motels in Metro Manila, filed
a motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-intervention
on the ground that the ordinance will affect their business interests as
Held: Yes. The ordinance was enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public
morals. It was made as there is observed an alarming increase in the rate of operators. RTC declared Ordinance No. 7774 null and void as it
prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence “strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and
of motels, which provide a necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and
exit and thus become the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill seekers. The ordinance
jealously guarded by the Constitution.” Reference was made to the
proposes to check the clandestine harboring of transients and guests of these provisions of the Constitution encouraging private enterprises and the
establishments by requiring these transients and guests to fill up a registration form, incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to operate
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 economic enterprises. Finally, from the observation that the illicit
characterizes the registration of transients and guests. The increase in the license relationships the Ordinance sought to dissuade could nonetheless be
fees was intended to discourage establishments of the kind from operating for
purpose other than legal and to increase the income of the city government. Further,
consummated by simply paying for a 12-hour stay,
the restriction on the freedom to contract, insofar as the challenged ordinance makes When elevated to CA, the respondents asserted that the ordinance is
it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Section 458 (4)(iv) of the
hotel, motel, lodging house, tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent any room
or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full Local Government Code which confers on cities the power to regulate
payment shall be charged, cannot be viewed as a transgression against the the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants,
command of due process. It is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Precisely it was
intended to curb the opportunity for the immoral or illegitimate use to which such
beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses
premises could be, and, are being devoted. Furthermore, the right of the individual is and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and
necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good. The transports. Also, they contended that under Art III Sec 18 of Revised
liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of the public health, or of the
public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power. Manila Charter, they have the power to enact all ordinances it may
State in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the
property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property may be subjected
furtherance of the prosperity and the promotion of the morality, peace,
good order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the city and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also
its inhabitants and to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances. conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not
contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or
Petitioners argued that the ordinance is unconstitutional and void oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not
since it violates the right to privacy and freedom of movement; it is an prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent
invalid exercise of police power; and it is unreasonable and with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable. The ordinance in
oppressive interference in their business. this case prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely
CA, in turn, reversed the decision of RTC. First, it held that the wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day.
ordinance did not violate the right to privacy or the freedom of The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the police power as
movement, as it only penalizes the owners or operators of conferred on local government units by the Local Government Code
establishments that admit individuals for short time stays. Second, the through such implements as the general welfare clause.
virtually limitless reach of police power is only constrained by having a
lawful object obtained through a lawful method. The lawful objective of The apparent goal of the ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the
the ordinance is satisfied since it aims to curb immoral activities. use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use
There is a lawful method since the establishments are still allowed to and alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and
operate. Third, the adverse effect on the establishments is justified by certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the
the well-being of its constituents in general. Hence, the petitioners desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their
appeared before the SC. achievement. Those means must align with the Constitution.

Yet, they also recognized the capacity of the petitioners to invoke as

well the constitutional rights of their patrons – those persons who
Issue: Whether Ordinance No. 7774 is a valid exercise of police would be deprived of availing short time access or wash-up rates to
power of the State. the lodging establishments in question. The rights at stake herein fell
within the same fundamental rights to liberty. Liberty as guaranteed by
the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to include “the right
Held: No. Ordinance No. 7774 cannot be considered as a valid to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude.
exercise of police power, and as such, it is unconstitutional. The facts The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint
of this case will recall to mind not only the recent City of Manila v of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man
Laguio Jr ruling, but the 1967 decision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and to enjoy the facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator,
Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila. The subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common
common thread that runs through those decisions and the case at bar welfare,
goes beyond the singularity of the localities covered under the
An ordinance which prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving
respective ordinances. All three ordinances were enacted with a view
of regulating public morals including particular illicit activity in transient patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in
with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the ordinance
lodging establishments. A long line of decisions including City of
as a police power measure. It must appear that the interests of the
Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be
public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and
require an interference with private rights and the means must be
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not Facts: Paranaque passed Ordinance No. 86, Series of 1990 which authorized
unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no the closure of J. Gabriel, G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and
other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive Opena Streets located at Baclaran, Parañaque, Metro Manila and the
establishment of a flea market thereon. The said ordinance was approved
of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation
by the municipal council pursuant to MMC Ordinance No. 2, Series of
must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means
1979, authorizing and regulating the use of certain city and/or municipal
employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of streets, roads and open spaces within Metropolitan Manila as sites for
protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to flea market and/or vending areas, under certain terms and conditions.
private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.

The behavior which the ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already

prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing On July 20, 1990, the Metropolitan Manila Authority approved
Ordinance No. 86, s. 1990 of the municipal council of respondent
laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing the proliferation of
municipality subject to the following conditions: 1. That the aforenamed
prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work would be more
streets are not used for vehicular traffic, and that the majority of the
effective in easing the situation. So would the strict enforcement of residents do not oppose the establishment of the flea market/vending
existing laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and drug use. areas thereon; 2. That the 2-meter middle road to be used as flea
These measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of market/vending area shall be marked distinctly, and that the 2 meters on
the petitioners and other legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent both sides of the road shall be used by pedestrians; 3. That the time
that the ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the during which the vending area is to be used shall be clearly designated;
whole day rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit 4. That the use of the vending areas shall be temporary and shall be
activities. Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect closed once the reclaimed areas are developed and donated by the Public
Estate Authority.
“wash rates” from their clientele by charging their customers a portion
of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments.

SC reiterated that individual rights may be adversely affected only to On June 20, 1990, the municipal council of Parañaque issued a
the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of resolution authorizing Parañaque Mayor Walfrido N. Ferrer to enter into
public interest or public welfare. The State is a leviathan that must be contract with any service cooperative for the establishment, operation,
restrained from needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens. The maintenance and management of flea markets and/or vending areas.
ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the
On August 8, 1990, respondent municipality and respondent Palanyag, a
petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without service cooperative, entered into an agreement whereby the latter shall
sufficient justification. The ordinance rashly equates wash rates and operate, maintain and manage the flea market in the aforementioned
renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without streets with the obligation to remit dues to the treasury of the municipal
accommodating innocuous intentions. government of Parañaque. Consequently, market stalls were put up by
respondent Palanyag on the said streets.

Macasiano v. Diokno
On September 13, 1990, petitioner Brig. Gen. Macasiano, PNP
Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic Command, ordered the
destruction and confiscation of stalls along G.G. Cruz and J. Gabriel St. in for public service paid for by said provinces, cities or municipalities.
Baclaran. These stalls were later returned to respondent Palanyag. All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall
be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of
On October 16, 1990, petitioner Brig. General Macasiano wrote a letter to special laws.
respondent Palanyag giving the latter ten (10) days to discontinue the
 J. Gabriel G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena
flea market; otherwise, the market stalls shall be dismantled.
streets are local roads used for public service and are therefore
considered public properties of respondent municipality. Properties
of the local government which are devoted to public service are
deemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress.
Hence, on October 23, 1990, respondents municipality and Palanyag
Hence, local governments have no authority whatsoever to control or
filed with the trial court a joint petition for prohibition and mandamus regulate the use of public properties unless specific authority is
with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction, to which the vested upon them by Congress. One such example of this authority
petitioner filed his memorandum/opposition to the issuance of the writ given by Congress to the local governments is the power to close
of preliminary injunction. roads as provided in Section 10, Chapter II of the LGC, which states:
Sec. 10. Closure of roads. - A LGU may likewise, through its head
acting pursuant to a resolution of its sangguniang and in accordance
with existing law and the provisions of this Code, close any barangay,
On October 24, 1990, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order municipal, city or provincial road, street, alley, park or square. No
to enjoin petitioner from enforcing his letter-order of October 16, 1990 such way or place or any part of thereof shall be close without
indemnifying any person prejudiced thereby. A property thus
pending the hearing on the motion for writ of preliminary injunction.
withdrawn from public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose
for which other real property belonging to the local unit concerned
might be lawfully used or conveyed.
On December 17, 1990, the trial court issued an order upholding the
 However, the aforestated legal provision which gives authority to
validity of Ordinance No. 86 s. 1990 of the Municipality' of Parañaque
LGUs to close roads and other similar public places should be read
and enjoining petitioner Brig. Gen. Macasiano from enforcing his letter- and interpreted in accordance with basic principles already
order against respondent Palanyag. established by law. These basic principles have the effect of limiting
such authority of the province, city or municipality to close a public
street or thoroughfare. Article 424 of the Civil Code lays down the
basic principle that properties of public dominion devoted to public
Issue: WON the ordinance authorizing the flea markets on public streets is use and made available to the public in general are outside the
valid commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or leased by the LGU to
private persons. Aside from the requirement of due process, which
should be complied with before closing a road, street or park, the
closure should be for the sole purpose of withdrawing the road or
NO. other public property from public use when circumstances show that
such property is no longer intended or necessary for public use or
public service. When it is already withdrawn from public use, the
property then becomes patrimonial property of the LGU concerned
 The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into (Article 422, Civil Code; Cebu Oxygen, etc. et al. v. Bercilles, et al.,
property for public use and patrimonial property (Art. 423, Civil G.R. No. L--40474, August 29, 1975, 66 SCRA 481). It is only then
Code). As to what consists of property for public use, Article 424 of that the respondent municipality can "use or convey them for any
Civil Code states: Art. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, purpose for which other real property belonging to the local unit
cities and municipalities, consists of the provincial roads, city streets, concerned might be lawfully used or conveyed" in accordance with
the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works the last sentence of Section 10, Chapter II of Blg. 337, known as LGC.
In one case, the City Council of Cebu, through a resolution, declared of the community. Every LGU has the sworn obligation to enact
the terminal road of M. Borces Street, Mabolo, Cebu City as an measures that will enhance the public health, safety and
abandoned road, the same not being included in the City convenience, maintain peace and order, and promote the general
Development Plan. Thereafter, the City Council passes another prosperity of the inhabitants of the local units. Based on this
resolution authorizing the sale of the said abandoned road through objective, the local government should refrain from acting towards
public bidding. We held therein that the City of Cebu is empowered that which might prejudice or adversely affect the general welfare.
to close a city street and to vacate or withdraw the same from public
use. Such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which
can be the object of an ordinary contract (Cebu Oxygen and  Dacanay case: the general public have a legal right to demand the
Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles, et al., G.R. No.L-40474, August 29, demolition of the illegally constructed stalls in public roads and
1975, 66 SCRA 481). However, those roads and streets which are streets and the officials of respondent municipality have the
available to the public in general and ordinarily used for vehicular corresponding duty arising from public office to clear the city streets
traffic are still considered public property devoted to public use. In and restore them to their specific public purpose. The instant case as
such case, the local government has no power to use it for another well as the Dacanay case, involves an ordinance which is void and
purpose or to dispose of or lease it to private persons. illegal for lack of basis and authority in laws applicable during its
time. However, at this point, We find it worthy to note that Batas
 Even assuming, in gratia argumenti, that respondent municipality Pambansa Blg. 337, known as Local Government Lode, has already
has the authority to pass the disputed ordinance, the same cannot be been repealed by Republic Act No. 7160 known as LGC of 1991 which
validly implemented because it cannot be considered approved by took effect on January 1, 1992. Section 5(d) of the new Code provides
the Metropolitan Manila Authority due to non-compliance by that rights and obligations existing on the date of effectivity of the
respondent municipality of the conditions imposed by the former for new Code and arising out of contracts or any other source of
the approval of the ordinance. prestation involving a LGU shall be governed by the original terms
and conditions of the said contracts or the law in force at the time
such rights were vested.
 Respondent municipality has not shown any iota of proof that it has
complied with the foregoing conditions precedent to the approval of
the ordinance. The allegations of respondent municipality that the CELESTINO TATEL, Petitioner,
closed streets were not used for vehicular traffic and that the
majority of the residents do not oppose the establishment of a flea vs.
market on said streets are unsupported by any evidence that will
show that this first condition has been met. Likewise, the designation MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, SALVADOR A. SURTIDA, in his
by respondents of a time schedule during which the flea market shall
operate is absent.
capacity as Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes; GAVINO V.
GUERRERO, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Virac,
Catanduanes; JOSE T. BUEBOS, in his capacity as Councilor of
 Further, it is of public notice that the streets along Baclaran area are Virac, Catanduanes; ANGELES TABLIZO, in his capacity as
congested with people, houses and traffic brought about by the Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; ELPIDIO T. ZAFE, in his
proliferation of vendors occupying the streets. To license and allow
the establishment of a flea market along J. Gabriel, G.G. Cruz, capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; MARIANO
Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena streets in Baclaran ALBERTO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes;
would not help in solving the problem of congestion. JULIA A. GARCIA, in her capacity as Councilor of Virac,
Catanduanes; and PEDRO A. GUERRERO, in his capacity as
Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes, Respondents.
 The powers of a LGU are not absolute. They are subject to limitations
laid down by toe Constitution and the laws such as our Civil Code.
Moreover, the exercise of such powers should be subservient to
paramount considerations of health and well-being of the members FACTS:
 This is a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction  Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, is a legitimate and valid
with the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes. filed by exercise of police power by the Municipal Council of Virac
appellant, Celestino Tatel, a businessman engaged in the and is not unconstitutional and void as claimed by the
import and export of abaca and other products against the petitioner;
Municipal Council of Virac, Catanduanes and its municipal  The storage by the petitioner of abaca and copra in the
officials enjoining them from enforcing Resolution No. 29 of warehouse is not only in violation of the provisions of the
the Council. ordinance but poses a grave danger to the safety of the lives
and properties of the residents of the neighborhood due to
 Resolution No. 29 was passed by the Municipal Council of
accidental fire and constitutes a public nuisance under the
Virac on April 22, 1966 declaring the warehouse owned and provisions of Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
operated by petitioner a public nuisance within the purview of and may be abated.
Article 694 of the New Civil Code.
 Respondent municipal officials contend that petitioner’s What is regulated by the ordinance is the construction of
warehouses wherein inflammable materials are stored where such
warehouse was constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 13,
warehouses are located at a distance of 200 meters from a block of
series of 1952, prohibiting the construction of warehouses near
houses and not the construction per se of a warehouse. The purpose
a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios without is to avoid the loss of life and property in case of fire which is one
maintaining the necessary distance of 200 meters from said of the primordial obligation of government.
block of houses to avoid loss of lives and properties by
accidental fire.
 Petitioner contends that said ordinance is unconstitutional, ANNOTATIONS:
contrary to the due process and equal protection clause of the
 It is a settled principal of law that municipal corporations are
Constitution and null and void for not having been passed in
agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of
accordance with law.
local self-government and as such are endowed with police
powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the
declared objects of their creation.
ISSUES:  For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
whether petitioner’s warehouse is a nuisance within the meaning of corporate powers of the municipality to enact but must also be
Article 694 of the Civil Code and whether Ordinance No. 13, S. 1952 passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, and must
of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void. be in consonance with certain well established and basic
principles of a substantive nature.
 Municipal ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
HELD: statue (2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must not be partial or
discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must
 The warehouse in question was legally constructed under a be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be
valid permit issued by the municipality of Virac in accordance unreasonable.
with existing regulations and may not be destroyed or removed
Binay vs Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991
from its present location;
Municipal governments exercise this power under the general
welfare clause. Pursuant thereto they are clothed with authority
Facts: 
to "enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities
Petitioner Municipality of Makati, through its Council, approved
conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and
Resolution No. 60 which extends P500 burial assistance to
proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and
bereaved families whose gross family income does not exceed
convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals,
P2,000.00 a month. The funds are to be taken out of the
promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality
unappropriated available funds in the municipal treasury. The
and the inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of
Metro Manila Commission approved the resolution. Thereafter,
property therein.
the municipal secretary certified a disbursement of P400,000.00
for the implementation of the program. However, the
2. Police power is not capable of an exact definition but has
Commission on Audit disapproved said resolution and the
been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all
disbursement of funds for the implementation thereof for the
comprehensiveness. Its scope, over-expanding to meet the
following reasons: (1) the resolution has no connection to
exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it
alleged public safety, general welfare, safety, etc. of the
could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and
inhabitants of Makati; (2) government funds must be disbursed
flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring
for public purposes only; and, (3) it violates the equal
the greatest benefits.
protection clause since it will only benefit a few individuals.
The police power of a municipal corporation is broad, and has
Issues:
been said to be commensurate with, but not to exceed, the duty
to provide for the real needs of the people in their health,
1. Whether Resolution No. 60 is a valid exercise of the police
safety, comfort, and convenience as consistently as may be
power under the general welfare clause
with private rights. It extends to all the great public needs, and,
2. Whether the questioned resolution is for a public purpose
in a broad sense includes all legislation and almost every
3. Whether the resolution violates the equal protection clause
function of the municipal government. It covers a wide scope of
subjects, and, while it is especially occupied with whatever
Held: 
affects the peace, security, health, morals, and general welfare
of the community, it is not limited thereto, but is broadened to
1. The police power is a governmental function, an inherent
deal with conditions which exists so as to bring out of them the
attribute of sovereignty, which was born with civilized
greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience
government. It is founded largely on the maxims, "Sic utere tuo
or general prosperity, and to everything worthwhile for the
et ahenum non laedas and "Salus populi est suprema lex. Its
preservation of comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation.
fundamental purpose is securing the general welfare, comfort
Thus, it is deemed inadvisable to attempt to frame any
and convenience of the people.
definition which shall absolutely indicate the limits of police
power.
Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal
corporations. Before a municipal corporation may exercise such
Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it
power, there must be a valid delegation of such power by the
incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. As correctly
legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the
pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, "the drift is
State.
towards social welfare legislation geared towards state policies
to provide adequate social services, the promotion of the
general welfare, social justice as well as human dignity and
respect for human rights." The care for the poor is generally
recognized as a public duty. The support for the poor has long
been an accepted exercise of police power in the promotion of
the common good.

3. There is no violation of the equal protection clause. Paupers

may be reasonably classified. Different groups may receive
varying treatment. Precious to the hearts of our legislators,
down to our local councilors, is the welfare of the paupers.
Thus, statutes have been passed giving rights and benefits to
the disabled, emancipating the tenant-farmer from the bondage
of the soil, housing the urban poor, etc. Resolution No. 60, re-
enacted under Resolution No. 243, of the Municipality of Makati
is a paragon of the continuing program of our government
towards social justice. The Burial Assistance Program is a relief
of pauperism, though not complete. The loss of a member of a
family is a painful experience, and it is more painful for the poor
to be financially burdened by such death. Resolution No. 60
vivifies the very words of the late President Ramon Magsaysay
'those who have less in life, should have more in law." This
decision, however must not be taken as a precedent, or as an
official go-signal for municipal governments to embark on a
philanthropic orgy of inordinate dole-outs for motives political or
otherwise.