Digest Balacuit v. CFI Agusan

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

BALACUIT V.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE AND BUTUAN CITY

G.R No. L-38429 | June 30, 1998 (TLR)

FACTS:

This is a petition for review to assail the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 passed by
the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan, penalizing any person, group of persons, entity or
corporation engaged in the business of selling admission tickets to any movie or other public
exhibitions, games, contests or other performances to require children between seven (7) and
twelve (12) years of age to pay full payment for admission tickets intended for adults but should
charge only one-half of the said ticket. Petitioners contend that the said ordinance is an invalid
exercise of power.

The petitioners Carlos Balacuit, et al. who are theatre managers, were aggrieved by the effect of
Ordinance No. 640. Hence, they filed a complaint before the CFI of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City
praying that the subject ordinance be declared unconstitutional, and therefore, void and
unenforceable.

The respondent court adjudges favour of the respondents and declared the aforementioned
ordinance constitutional and valid. Petitioners filed their MR which was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N Ordinance No. 640 is a valid exercise of police power.

RULING:

No. While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that such regulation must be
within the bounds of reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions
cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the business or calling subject of
regulation. A lawful business or calling may not, under the guise of regulation, be unreasonably
interfered with even by the exercise of police power.

A police measure for the regulation of the conduct, control and operation of a business should not
encroach upon the legitimate and lawful exercise by the citizens of their property rights. The right
of the owner to fix a price at which his property shall be sold or used is an inherent attribute of the
property itself and, as such, within the protection of the due process clause.

There is nothing pernicious in demanding equal price for both children and adults. The petitioners
are merely conducting their legitimate businesses. The object of every business entrepreneur is to
make a profit out of his venture. There is nothing immoral or injurious in charging the same price for
both children and adults. In fact, no person is under compulsion to purchase a ticket. It is a totally
voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he buys a ticket to such performances.

Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades the personal and property rights of petitioners for even if We
could assume that, on its face, the interference was reasonable, from the foregoing considerations,
it has been fully shown that it is an unwarranted and unlawful curtailment of the property and
personal rights of citizens. TC decision was reversed. Ordinance is rendered unconstitutional.

You might also like