G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983, C.J.
FERNANDO, En Banc
Cruz vs. Paras
FACTS:
On November 5, 1975, two cases for prohibition with preliminary injunction
were filed with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. One of the grounds
alleged by the petitioners was that Ordinance No. 84 is null and void as a
municipality has no authority to prohibit a lawful business, occupation or
calling.
The Intermediate Appellate Court issued a restraining order on November 7,
1975. The answers were thereafter filed. It was alleged that the Municipal
Council is authorized by law not only to regulate but to prohibit the
establishment, maintenance and operation of night clubs.
Then came on January 15, 1976 the decision upholding the constitutionality
and validity of Ordinance No. 84 and dismissing the cases.
Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari by way of appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the municipal corporation of Bocaue, Bulacan, can, prohibit the
exercise of a lawful trade, the operation of night clubs, and the pursuit of a lawful
occupation, such clubs employing hostesses.
RULING:
The High Court declared the enactment of the assailed ordinance null and void.
Police power is granted to municipal corporations in general terms as follows:
The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such
regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect
and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as
shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety,
promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and
convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and for the
protection of property therein.
An ordinance enacted by virtue thereof, according to Justice Moreland, speaking
for the Court in the leading case of United States v. Abendan "is valid, unless it
contravenes the fundamental law of the Philippine Islands, or an Act of the
Philippine Legislature, or unless it is against public policy, or is unreasonable,
oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in derogation of common right. Where the
power to legislate upon a given subject, and the mode of its exercise and the details
of such legislation are not prescribed, the ordinance passed pursuant thereto must
be a reasonable exercise of the power, or it will be pronounced invalid."
It is a general rule that ordinances passed by virtue of the implied power found in
the general welfare clause must be reasonable, consonant with the general powers
and purposes of the corporation, and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the
State." If night clubs were merely then regulated and not prohibited, certainly the
assailed ordinance would pass the test of validity.
The objective of fostering public morals can be attained by a measure that does not
encompass too wide a field. Certainly the ordinance on its face is characterized by
overbreadth. The purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by
reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition.
It is clear that municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of night clubs.
They may be regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their business. During
such time, their employees would undergo a period of deprivation. Certainly, if
such an undesirable outcome can be avoided, it should be.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted and the decision of the lower court
dated January 15, 1976 reversed, set aside, and nullified. Ordinance No. 84, Series
of 1975 of the Municipality of Bocaue is declared void and unconstitutional. The
temporary restraining order issued by this Court is hereby made permanent. No
costs.
