Ermita Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association v.

City of Manila [GR L-24693, 31 July 1967]

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 acting Mayor of the City of Manila. The ordinance (1) imposes a P6,000.00 fee per annum for first
class motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels; (2) requires the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of
a hotel, motel, or lodging house to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer or letting any room or other quarter
to any person or persons without his filling up the 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, the occupation, the sex, the nationality, the
length of stay and the number of companions in the room, if any, with the name, relationship, age and sex would be specified, with
data furnished as to his residence certificate as well as his passport number, if any, coupled with a certification that a person
signing such form has personally filled it up and affixed his signature in the presence of such owner, 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 hotels, motels and lodging houses would be open for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or
their duly authorized representatives. The ordinance also classified motels into two classes and required the maintenance of
certain 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 dining room. It prohibited a person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such
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 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 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 faithful execution and enforcement of
such ordinances. There was a plea for the issuance of preliminary injunction and for a final judgment declaring the above
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 Ordinance 4760 from and after 8 July 1963. After the submission of the memoranda, 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 injunction issued by the Mayor and his agents to restrain him from enforcing the ordinance. The
Mayor of Manila appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the regulations imposed on motels and hotels (increasing license fees, partially restricting the freedom to contract,
and restraining the liberty of individuals) is valid and/or constitutional.

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 prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence 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 proposes to check the clandestine harboring of transients and guests of these establishments by
requiring these transients and guests to fill up a registration form, 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 characterizes the registration
of transients and guests. The increase in the license 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, 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 any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24
hours, with a proviso that in all cases full payment shall be charged, cannot be viewed as a transgression against the 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 premises could be, and, are being devoted. Furthermore, the right of the individual is necessarily subject to
reasonable restraint by general law for the common good. 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. State in order to promote the
general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property may
be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the
state.