10/6/2020 The Batty Barrister: CARLOS BALACUIT ET.AL V.

CFI OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CARLOS BALACUIT ET.AL V. CFI OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE - CASE

DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CARLOS BALACUIT ET.AL V. CFI OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988

FACTS:

the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan pass an ordinance penalizing any person, group of persons, en ty, or
corpora on engaged in the business of selling admission ckets to any movie or other public exhibi ons, games,
contests, or other performances to require children between seven (7) and twelve (12) years of age to pay full
payment for admission ckets intended for adults but should charge only one-half of the value of the said ckets.

The Pe oners, theater owners, aggrieved by said ordinance, they file a complaint before the Court of First
Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City assailing the cons tu onalit of Ordinance No. 640.

The Court rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 640 of the City of Butuan cons tu onal and valid.

ISSUE:

WON Ordinance No. 640 is a valid exercise of police power

HELD:

YES. Ordinance No. 640 infringes theater owners’ right to property.

While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that such regula on must be within the
bounds of reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions cannot be
oppressive amoun ng to an arbitrary interference with the business or calling subject of regula on. A lawful
business or calling may not, under the guise of regula on, be unreasonably interfered with even by the
exercise of police power.33 A police measure for the regula on of the conduct, control and opera on of a
business should not encroach upon the legi mate and lawful exercise by the ci zens of their property
rights.34 The right of the owner to fix a price at which his property shall be sold or used is an inherent
a ribute of the property itself and, as such, within the protec on of the due process clause."" Hence, the
proprietors of a theater have a right to manage their property in their own way, to fix what prices of
admission they think most for their own advantage, and that any person who did not approve could stay
away.

Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades the personal and property rights of pe oners for even if We could
assume that, on its face, the interference was reasonable, from the foregoing considera ons, it has been
fully shown that it is an unwarranted and unlawful curtailment of the property and personal rights of
ci zens. For being unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade, it cannot, under the guise of exercising
police power, be upheld as valid.

Wherefore, the decision of the trial court in Special Civil Case No. 237 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new
judgment is hereby rendered declaring Ordinance No. 640 uncons tu onal and, therefore, null and void.

thebattybarrister.blogspot.com/2018/02/carlos-balacuit-etal-v-cfi-of-agusan.html 1/1