Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 168 views

    DIGEST No. 8 - REPORT (VELASCO vs. VILLEGAS)

    Uploaded by

    grace
    This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of City of Manila Ordinance No. 4964, which prohibits barbershops from conducting massage services in adjacent or connected rooms. Petitioners, representing barbershop owners, argued the ordinance deprived them of property and livelihood without due process. Respondents claimed it was a valid exercise of police power to impose licensing fees and prevent immorality. The lower court ruled in favor of the ordinance's constitutionality. The Supreme Court affirms, finding the ordinance a reasonable exercise of the city's police power under its general welfare clause in the absence of proof of unconstitutionality.

    Copyright:

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

    DIGEST No. 8 - REPORT (VELASCO vs. VILLEGAS)

    Uploaded by

    grace
    168 views2 pages
    This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of City of Manila Ordinance No. 4964, which prohibits barbershops from conducting massage services in adjacent or connected rooms. Petitioners, representing barbershop owners, argued the ordinance deprived them of property and livelihood without due process. Respondents claimed it was a valid exercise of police power to impose licensing fees and prevent immorality. The lower court ruled in favor of the ordinance's constitutionality. The Supreme Court affirms, finding the ordinance a reasonable exercise of the city's police power under its general welfare clause in the absence of proof of unconstitutionality.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    DIGEST no. 8 - REPORT (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?

    This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of City of Manila Ordinance No. 4964, which prohibits barbershops from conducting massage services in adjacent or connected rooms. Petitioners, representing barbershop owners, argued the ordinance deprived them of property and livelihood without due process. Respondents claimed it was a valid exercise of police power to impose licensing fees and prevent immorality. The lower court ruled in favor of the ordinance's constitutionality. The Supreme Court affirms, finding the ordinance a reasonable exercise of the city's police power under its general welfare clause in the absence of proof of unconstitutionality.

    Copyright:

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

    DIGEST No. 8 - REPORT (VELASCO vs. VILLEGAS)

    Uploaded by

    grace
    This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of City of Manila Ordinance No. 4964, which prohibits barbershops from conducting massage services in adjacent or connected rooms. Petitioners, representing barbershop owners, argued the ordinance deprived them of property and livelihood without due process. Respondents claimed it was a valid exercise of police power to impose licensing fees and prevent immorality. The lower court ruled in favor of the ordinance's constitutionality. The Supreme Court affirms, finding the ordinance a reasonable exercise of the city's police power under its general welfare clause in the absence of proof of unconstitutionality.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE TITLE:

    TOMAS VELASCOA, LOURDES RAMIREZ, SY PIN, EDUARDO UNSON, APOLONIA


    RAMIREZ, LOURSDES LOMIBAO, as member components of STA. CRUZ BARBERSHOPS
    ASSOCIATION, in their own behalf and in representation of the other owners of
    barbershops of the City of Manila (PETITIONERS-APPELANTS)

    Versus

    HON. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS – City Mayor of Manila


    HON. HERMINION A. ASTORGA – Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Mun. Board
    MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA
    EDUARDO QUINTOS SR. – Chief of Police of the City of Manila
    (RESPONDENTS-APPELLES)

    SYLLABI: STATUTE – ORDINANCE-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION


    DIVISION : EN BANC
    DOCKET NO. : L-24153
    COUNSEL: JOAQUIN P. YUSECO (PETITIONERS)
    LEONARDO L. ARGUELLES (RESPONDENTS)
    PONENTE: FERNANDO, J.

    FACTS:
    Respondents, Hon. Villegas and the City Municipal Board, enacted Ordinance No. 4964
    regulating the conduct of business of all barbershops within the city.

    Petitioners filed in Lower Court of City of Manila a declaratory relief challenging the
    constitutionality of Ordinance No. 4964 in which they contended that the said ordinance
    amounts to deprivation of their property and means of livelihood without due process of law.
    The assailed ordinance is worded thus : “ it shall be prohibited for any operator of any
    barbershop to conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent
    room or rooms of the said barbershop or in any room or rooms within the same building
    where the barbershop is located as long as the operator of the barbershop and the rooms
    where massaging is conducted is the same person.

    Respondents contended that the Ordinance is a police power measure with the
    following objectives: (1) to impose license fee for engaging in the business of massage clinic
    under Ordinance No. 3659 as amended by Ordinance No. 4767, an entirely different measure
    than the ordinance regulating the barbershop business; (2) to forestall possible immorality
    which might grow out of the constructions of separate rooms for massage of customers.

    The Lower Court ruled in favor of the Respondents. Thus, petitioners filed an instant
    case before the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:
    Is City of Manila Ordinance No. 4964 constitutional?

    RULING:
    YES, the City of Manila Ordinance No. 4964 is constitutional.

    This Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinance based on the general welfare
    clause. As far back as U.S. vs. SALAVERIA, 39 Phil. 102, a 1918 decision, this Court through
    Judge Malcolm made clear the significance and scope of such clause, which “delegates in
    statutory form the police power to a municipality. 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 recall, is the progressive
    view of the Philippine Jurisprudence.”
    Thus, the Court affirmed the decision of the Lower Court as City of Manila Ordinance
    No. 4964 is a police power measure for there is no showing of its unconstitutionality.

    You might also like