Ermita-Malate Hotel Operations vs.
City of Manila
Facts:
On July 5, 1963 the petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 was
filed by Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, one of its
members, Hotel del Mar Inc., and Go Chiu, who is "the latter’s president
and general manager" against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila
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 the necessary
orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances." It
was alleged that the petitioner non-stock corporation is dedicated to the
promotion and protection of the interest of its eighteen (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." It was then alleged that on June
13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760,
approved on June 14, 1963 by the then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, who was at
the time acting as Mayor of the City of Manila. There was the assertion of its
being beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila to enact
insofar as it would regulate motels, on the ground that in the revised charter
of the City of Manila or in any other law. Sec. 1: It was a violation of
privacy and it was against self-incrimination and that is why it is
unconstitutional and void. Sec. 2: classifying rooms and prohibiting persons
under 18 to be given any room without the company of parents. On August 3, 1963
an answer was filed regarding the respondent mayor that the petitioners are
licensed to engage in the hotel or motel business in the City of Manila, of the
provisions of the cited Ordinance but a denial of its alleged nullity, whether
on statutory or constitutional grounds the petition did fail to state a cause
of action and that the challenged ordinance bears a reasonable relation, to a
proper purpose, which is to curb immorality, a valid and proper exercise of the
police power and that only the guests or customers not before the court could
complain of the alleged invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty
against self incrimination, with the assertion that the issuance of the
preliminary injunction ex parte was
contrary to law, respondent Mayor prayed for, its dissolution and the dismissal
of the petition.
Issue:
WON Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process
clause
Ruling:
The lower court held that it is and adjudged it "unconstitutional, and,
therefore, null and void." Nor does the restriction on the freedom to
contract, insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it unlawful for the owner,
manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel, motel, lodging
house, tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent room or portion thereof
more than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full payment
shall be charged, call for a different conclusion. Again, such a limitation
cannot be viewed as a transgression against the command of due process. It is
neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The right of the individual is necessarily
subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good x x x The
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."28The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by
the government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations
affected with public interest.31 What may be stressed sufficiently
is that if the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the
standard for the validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and
exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects at the most rights of
property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.The attack
against the validity of the challenged ordinance cannot be considered a
success.