CASE NO.

40

WHITE VS CITY OF MANILA

Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Court of Appeals decision

(Rule 45);
Petitioners challenged the decision of the CA which upheld the
constitutionality of Manila Ordinance No. 7774 which prohibits the short-
time admission and wash-up rates schemes in hotels, motels, inns,
lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of
Manila.

ANTECENDENTS:
Mayor Alfredo Lim signed an Ordinance into law on Dec. 3, 1992,
prohibiting admittance and charging of room rate for less than 12
hours or the renting out of rooms more than twice a day, imposing a
penalty of Php 5,000, and imprisonment of not more than 1 year or
both;

On Dec. 15, 1992, Makati Tourist and Dev. Corp. (MTDC) filed a
Complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for Preliminary Injuction
and TRO before the RTC of Manila;

On Dec. 21, Petitioner White Light Corp. (WLC) et. at filed a Motion
to intervene and to admit their Complaint Intervention as the
Ordinance also directly affect their business interest;

The RTC GRANTED the Motion to Intervene, and the RTC also notified
the SolGen, pursuant to Rule 64, Sec. 4 of Rules of Court;

Meanwhile, MTDC filed a Motion to Withdraw, which was Granted by
the RTC;

On Jan. 14, 1993, RTC issued a TRO, directing the City to cease and
desist from enforcing the ordinance;

Respondent (City) filed an ANSWER, alleging the Ordinance was a

legitimate exercise of police power;

RTC issued a WRIT of Preliminary Injuction, ordering the City to desist from
enforcing the Ordinance;

(one month after)
The SolGen filed a COMMENT, arguing that the Ordinance was
Constitutional;

Case was then submitted for decision without trial, as agreed by the
parties, the case being a pure legal question;

RTC rendered a DECISION and declared the decision of the RTC Null and
Void;

Respondent filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court;

SC treated this Petition as a Petition for Certiorari and remanded the case
to the CA;

CA ruled that the ordinance was a VALID exercise of Police Power pursuant
to LGC and RVERSED RTC DECISION;

Petitioners appealed via PET. For REV. on Certiorari before the SC with the
following grounds:
the ordinance is an invalid exercise of Police Power
as owners of the establishment their business is being unlawfully
interfered with by the Ordinance;
That the equal protection right of their clients are also being
interfered with;
That the Ordinance makes an intrusion into the right to Liberty of
their clients.

ISSUE:
The crux of the matter is whether or not these establishments have the
requisite standing to represent and to plead for protection of their patrons
equal protection rights.

RULING:
Citing the case of Allen vs. Writ, the United Stated Supreme Court,
established the Standard test for a petitioners standing, namely: injury,
causation and redressability.

However, the general rule on Standing test admits several exceptions, one
of which is the one applicable in the case at bar, which is the Overbreadth
Doctrine. In this doctrine, 3 important criteria must be satisfied:
1. The litigant must have suffered an inhury-in-fact, thus giving him/her a
sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the dispute;
2. The litigant must have a close relation to the third party;
3. There must exist some hindrance to the 3 rd partys ability to protect his/her
own interest.

ANALYSIS (Application of the law/ jurisprudence):

Fulfilling the 1st and 2nd criteria of the overbreadth doctrine, is clear that
the business interests of the petitioners are likewise injured by the
Ordinance. They rely on the patronage of their customers for their
continued viability which appears to be threatened by the enforcement of
the Ordinance. Lastly, the 3 rd criterion is met as the relative silence in
constitutional litigation of such special interest groups in our nation may
also be construed as a hindrance for customers to bring suit.

Although overbreadth doc is generaly applied to statutes infringing on the

freedom of speech, it is also applied when a statute needlessly restrains
constitutionally guaranteed rights.

In this case, the SC ruled tha the Petitioners (White et. al.) claim that the
ordinance makes a sweeping intrusion into the rights and liberty of their
clients and therefore, cased on the allegations in the Petition, the
Ordinance suffers from overbreadth.
The SC thus recognize that Petitioners have a right to assert the
constitutional right of their clients to patronize their establishment for a
wash-rate time frame.

The SC further reiterates the Test of a Valid Ordinance, to wit:

1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2. must not be unfair or oppressive
3. must not be partial or discriminatory
4. must not prohibit but may regulate trade
5. must be general and consistent with public policy and
6. must not be unreasonable

CONCLUSION:
Applying the Doctrine of overbreadth, the SC found the Petitioners to have
a locus standing to represent their clients and bring the case to court.