Velasco vs. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 (1983)

Velasco vs. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 (1983)

Nature:  Declaratory relief

Keyword:  Barbershop, massage parlor in a separate room, constitutionality of Ordinance 4964

Summary: Petitioners assailed the validity of Ordinance 4964, prohibiting barbershop to conduct massaging customers in a separate room or in any room in the same building where the operator of the barbershop and the room of massaging is the same. The contention being that it amounts to a deprivation of property of petitioners-appellants of their means of livelihood without due process of law. Lower Court dismissed the petition for declaratory relief.

Facts: Petitioners herein are members of the Sta. Cruz Barbershop Association. This is an appeal from the lower court's (LC) order dismissing their suit for declatory relief. They are challenging the constitutionality of Ord. No. 4964. They contend that it amounts to deprivation of properties and their means of livelihood without due process of law.

The assailed ordinance is worded thus: "It shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room or rooms of said barber shop, or in any room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the room where massaging is conducted is the same person."

Respondent in its reply, said that the Ordinance No. 4964 is constitutional and such is just an exercise of the state's inherent power (police power).

Issue: Whether or not the assailed Ordinance violated the petitioner's right to property and their means of livelihood.

Held: Ordinance is Constitutional. Petition is dismissed, LC decision affirmed.

Enactment of such (Ordinance) is a valid exercise of Police Power.

The objectives of the Ordinance are:

(1) To impose payment of license fees for engaging in the business of massage clinics, and;

(2) To forestall possible immorality which might grow from the construction of a separate room for massaging customers.

This Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause. And for that reason, the petitioners’ rights were not violated and they are not deprived of the due process of law.