White Light Corporation v.

City of Manila
On 3 Dec 1992, then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled An Ordinance prohibiting short time
admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of
Manila. White Light Corp is an operator of mini hotels and motels who sought to have the Ordinance be
nullified as the said Ordinance infringes on the private rights of their patrons. The RTC ruled in favor of
WLC. It ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution. The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is a valid exercise of police power. Under
the LGC, the City is empowered to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes,
restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar
establishments, including tourist guides and transports. The CA ruled in favor of the City.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual liberty. It
also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation
or seizure. The said ordinance invades private rights. Note that not all who goes into motels and hotels for
wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes only. Some are tourists who needed rest or to wash
up or to freshen up. Hence, the infidelity sought to be avoided by the said ordinance is more or less
subjected only to a limited group of people. The SC reiterates that individual rights may be adversely
affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or
public welfare.
MMDA v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising
In 1997, the Government, through the Department of Transportation and Communications, entered into a
build-lease-transfer agreement (BLT agreement) with Metro Rail Transit Corporation, Limited (MRTC)
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6957 (Build, Operate and Transfer Law), under which MRTC undertook to build
MRT3 subject to the condition that MRTC would own MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration of which the
ownership would transfer to the Government. In 1998, respondent Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising,
Vending & Promotions, Inc. (Trackworks) entered into a contract for advertising services with MRTC.
Trackworks thereafter installed commercial billboards, signages and other advertising media in the
different parts of the MRT3. In 2001, however, MMDA requested Trackworks to dismantle the billboards,
signages and other advertising media pursuant to MMDA Regulation No. 96-009, whereby MMDA prohibited
the posting, installation and display of any kind or form of billboards, signs, posters, streamers, in any part
of the road, sidewalk, center island, posts, trees, parks and open space. After Trackworks refused the
request of MMDA, MMDA proceeded to dismantle the formers billboards and similar forms of
advertisement.
Issue: Whether MMDA has the power to dismantle, remove or destroy the billboards, signages and other
advertising media installed by Trackworks on the interior and exterior structures of the MRT3.
Ruling: That Trackworks derived its right to install its billboards, signages and other advertising media in
the MRT3 from MRTCs authority under the BLT agreement to develop commercial premises in the MRT3
structure or to obtain advertising income therefrom is no longer debatable. Under the BLT agreement,
indeed, MRTC owned the MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration of which MRTC would transfer ownership
of the MRT3 to the Government.
Considering that MRTC remained to be the owner of the MRT3 during the time material to this case, and
until this date, MRTCs entering into the contract for advertising services with Trackworks was a valid
exercise of ownership by the former. In fact, in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Trackworks
Rail Transit Advertising, Vending & Promotions, Inc., this Court expressly recognized Trackworks right to
install the billboards, signages and other advertising media pursuant to said contract. The latters right
should, therefore, be respected.
It is futile for MMDA to simply invoke its legal mandate to justify the dismantling of Trackworks billboards,
signages and other advertising media. MMDA simply had no power on its own to dismantle, remove, or
destroy the billboards, signages and other advertising media installed on the MRT3 structure by
Trackworks. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., and Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Garin, the Court had the occasion to rule that MMDAs powers were limited to the formulation,
coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies,
installing a system, and administration. Nothing in Republic Act No. 7924 granted MMDA police power, let
alone legislative power.
The Court also agrees with the CAs ruling that MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 and MMC Memorandum
Circular No. 88-09 did not apply to Trackworks billboards, signages and other advertising media. The
prohibition against posting, installation and display of billboards, signages and other advertising media
applied only to public areas, but MRT3, being private property pursuant to the BLT agreement between the
Government and MRTC, was not one of the areas as to which the prohibition applied.
Acebedo Optical Co. v. CA
Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. applied for a business permit to operate in Iligan City. After hearing the
sides of local optometrists, Mayor Camilo Cabili of Iligan granted the permit but he attached various special
conditions which basically made Acebedo dependent upon prescriptions or limitations to be issued by local
optometrists. Acebedo basically is not allowed to practice optometry within the city (but may sell glasses
only). Acebedo however acquiesced to the said conditions and operated under the permit. Later, Acebedo
was charged for violating the said conditions and was subsequently suspended from operating within
Iligan. Acebedo then assailed the validity of the attached conditions. The local optometrists argued that
Acebedo is estopped in assailing the said conditions because it acquiesced to the same and that the
imposition of the special conditions is a valid exercise of police power; that such conditions were entered
upon by the city in its proprietary function hence the permit is actually a contract.
ISSUE: Whether or not the special conditions attached by the mayor is a valid exercise of police power.

HELD: NO. Acebedo was applying for a business permit to operate its business and not to practice
optometry (the latter being within the jurisdiction PRC Board of Optometry). The conditions attached by the
mayor is ultra vires hence cannot be given any legal application therefore estoppel does not apply. It is
neither a valid exercise of police power. Though the mayor can definitely impose conditions in the granting
of permits, he must base such conditions on law or ordinances otherwise the conditions are ultra vires.
Lastly, the granting of the license is not a contract, it is a special privilege estoppel does not apply.