People v. Gabriel | G.R No. 18838 | July 25, 1922 | Johns, J.

Nature: Appeal from the decision of the Court of First

Instance of Manila
Petitioners: People of the Philppines
Respondents: Teofilo Gabriel
TOPIC: General Welfare Clause
SUMMARY: Defendant Teofilo Gabriel was found guilty of violating a
city ordinance prohibiting criers at auctions. He assails the validity of
the ordinance, saying it is invalid for being discriminatory (applies to
all without distinction). The Court held that it is a valid exercise of
police power, the wisdom of which is not in the province of the Courts
to rule upon. It also held that there is no discrimination, as it applies
equally to all person situated alike.

FACTS
 City of Manila Ordinance No. 938 disallowing the use of
bells/criers/noisy stuff at auctions to attract bidders.
o Except that it’s allowed between 8am-12nn, 2pm-
7pm on work days
o It’s absolutely prohibited on Calles Escolta, Rosario,
and Echague, and Plaza Santa Cruz and Plaza Goiti
 Defendant Gabriel was accused and found GUILTY of violating
the ordinance, and made to pay a P10 fine.
o On Sept 26, 1921, 11:20am, policeman William Able
heard a crier of an auction, which was Gabriel.
 Gabriel: “the ordinance discriminates and is void and
unconstitutional. It applies alike to all persons on the said
streets. There is no discrimination against any person in
business on those particular streets. It is in the nature of a
police regulation, and to that extent is intended as a business
regulation.” It should not be able to punish him.

ISSUE: WON the ordinance is invalid? – NO, it is VALID

 Assume regularity of performance of duty. The wisdom of the
ordinance is non-justiciable.
 Ordinance is an act of police power, regulating business.
 There is no discrimination. It applies to all kinds and classes of
people alike doing business within the prohibited area. So long as
the ordinance is uniform, the city has a legal right to specify how,
when, where, and in what manner goods may be sold at auction
within its limits, and to prohibit their sale in any other manner.

DISPOSITION: There is no merit in the defense. The judgment is

AFFIRMED, with costs.

NOTES: