BVR CONSULTING INC
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • AUDIT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • ONLINE TAX PREPARATION

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer. 
this webpage is
 primarily designed to assist students of law in their studies. It is merely a tool. The use of our Services does not guarantee success in obtaining a law degree nor in passing the Bar Exams. we makes no warranties or representations of any kind, whether expressed or implied for the Services provided. The cases, laws, and other publications found in this site are of public domain, collected from public sources such as the Supreme Court online library. The content however have been heavily modified, formatted, and optimized for better user experience, and are no longer perfect copies of their original. we gives no warranty for the accuracy or the completeness of the materials. This site also contains materials published by the students, professors, lawyers, and other users of the our Services. 


White Light v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416 (2009)

10/26/2020

0 Comments

 
White Light v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416 (2009)
​

FACTS:
  • Mayor Alfredo Lim signed into law Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled, “An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission Rates and Wash-up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila” (the Ordinance)
  • As a result, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) impleading defendant City of Manila and praying that the Ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional
  • White Light Corporation, et al. also filed a Motion to Intervene on the ground that the Ordinance directly affects their business interest as operators of drive-in hotels and motels of Manila
  • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the City to desist from the enforcement of the Ordinance
  • The City maintains that it is empowered to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beer houses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments under Section 458 (4) (iv) of the Local Government Code

ISSUE:
Whether or not the assailed Ordinance of the City of Manila is a valid exercise of police power .

RULING:
                No, the Supreme Court reversed the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) and reinstated the Decision of RTC Manila, Branch 9 upholding that the Ordinance is unconstitutional.
                Under the Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution, was defined by Justice Malcolm to include "the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude”. To consider the exercise of police power as valid, it must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.
In this case, although the objective of the Ordinance is to minimize, if not eliminate, the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and other similar activities, which certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State, other legitimate activities would also be impaired. Similarly, the behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and could be diminished by simply applying existing laws. 
Hence, the exercise of police power through the assailed Ordinance is considered an arbitrary intrusion into private rights and is deemed unconstitutional and invalid.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    September 2024
    August 2024
    May 2024
    December 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • AUDIT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • ONLINE TAX PREPARATION