Physical Theraphy
Org. vs Mun. Board of Manila
Keyword: License Fee
Facts: Petitioner is an association of registered massagists and
licensed operators of massage clinics in the city of manila and other parts of
the country. They filed an action in the CFI of Manila for declaratory
judgement regarding the validity of Mun. Ordinace No. 3659. Petitioner filed an
injuction case. After the hearing the trial court dismissed the petition and
later dissolved the writ of injuction. From this decision petitioner appealed
said judgement directly to this court. Petitioners contend that the City of
Manila is w/out authority to regulate the operation of massagist and the
operation of massage clinic because under the New charter of Manila, RA 409,
the Dir. of Health is the one who exercise supervision over the practice of
massage clinics in the Phil. They also contends that the license fee of 100
pesos for operator in Sec.2 of the ordinance is unreasonable.
Issue: Whether or not City of manila committed garve abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and whether the license
fee is unreasonable
Ruling: The Sc ruled that under the New Charter of City of Manila
particularly Sec.18 it gives the legislative powers to the Mun.Board to enact
all ordinance it may deem necessary and proper for the promotion of general
welfare. This is generally referred to as
the General Welfare Clause. On the second contention of whether the
license fee is unreasonable, The court ruled that said fee is made payable not
by the massagist but the operator of a massage clinic. Said amount may appear
to be large and unreasonable however much discreation is given to mun. corp. in
determining the amount of said fees w/out considering it as a tax for revenue
purposes but for regulatory purposes. The end sought to be attained in the
ordinance is to prevent the commission of immorality and the practice of
prostitution in an establishment masquerading as a massage clinic. Therefore
said ordinance is valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment