Balacuit vs. Court of First Instance, 163 SCRA 182

Balacuit v. CFI, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 1988

Balacuit vs. Court of First Instance, 163 SCRA 182

Title of the Case: Balacuit et al., v. Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City; G.R. No. L-38429; June 30, 1988

Nature: Petition for Review questioning the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No.640 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan

Keywords: Regulatory Ordinaces, 1/2 price of Movie tickets for Minors, Police Power by the local government

Summary: The Municipal Board of City of Butuan passed Oridinance No 640 on 21 April 1969, “penalizing any person, group of persons, entity or engaged in the business of selling admission tickets to any movie… to require children between 7-12 years of age to pay full payment for ticket should only be charged one half.” Petitioners Carlos Balacuit , et al as managers of theaters assailed the validity and constitutionality of the said ordinance. The court adjudged in favour of the respondents hence the petition for review.  Petitioners contend that it violates due process clause of the Constitution for being oppressive , unfair , unjust, confiscatory and an undue restraint of trade.

GANCAYCO, J.

Facts: This involves a Petition for Review questioning the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No.640 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan on April 21, 1969, penalizing any person, group of persons, entity or corporation engaged in the business of selling admission tickets to any movie or other public exhibitions, games, contests or other performances to require children between 7 and 12 years of age to pay full payment for tickets intended for adults but should charge only one-half of the said ticket. Petitioners who are managers of theaters, affected by the ordinance, filed a Complaint before the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City docketed as Special Civil No. 237 on June 30,1969, praying that the subject ordinance be declared unconstitutional and, therefore, void and unenforceable. The Court rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 640 of the City of Butuan constitutional and valid.

Issue: Whether Ordinance No. 640 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan is valid andconstitutional and was the Ordinance a valid exercise of police power.

Ratio: It is already settled that the operation of theaters, cinematographs and other places of public exhibition are subject to regulation by the municipal council in the exercise of delegated police power by the local government. However, to invoke the exercise of police power, not only must it appear that the interest of the public generally requires an interference with private rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, the determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.

The Court likewise ruled in the negative as to the question of the subject ordinance being a valid exercise of police power. While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that such regulation must be within the bounds of reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the business or calling subject of regulation. 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.

The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or unless it is against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a common right.

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

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court in Special Civil Case No. 237 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered declaring Ordinance No. 640 unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. This decision is immediately executory.

Central Bank vs. Morfe, G.R. No. 20119, June 30, 1967

Central Bank vs. Morfe, G.R. No. 20119, June 30, 1967

Nature:This is an original action for certiorari, prohibition and injunction, with preliminary injunction, against an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Keywords:unreasonable search and seizure. Requisites for a valid search warrant.

Facts:First Mutual Savings and Loan Organization encourage savings among its members and extend financial assistance thru loans. Central bank said that the Organization and others with similar nature are banking institutions and that the Org have never been authorized. Central Bank applied for asearch warrant because of the Org’s illegal receipt of deposits of money for deposit, disbursements…without compliance with Sec 2 of the General Banking Act, RA 337. The search warrant includes articles such as book of original entry…and others. (SEE NOTES)

Upon the filing of said application, on May 18, 1962, Hon. Roman Cancino, as Judge of the said municipal court, issued the warrant above referred to, commanding the search of the aforesaid premises at No. 2745 Rizal Avenue, Manila, and the seizure of the foregoing articles, there being "good and sufficient reasons to believe" upon examination, under oath, of a detective of the Manila Police Department and said intelligence officer of the Bank — that the Organization has under its control, in the address given, the aforementioned articles, which are the subject of the offense adverted to above or intended to be used as means for the commission of said offense.

The organization commenced Civil Case No. 50409 before the CFI Manila an original action for "certiorari, prohibition, with writ of preliminary injunction and/or writ of preliminary mandatory injunction," against said municipal court, the Sheriff of Manila, the Manila Police Department, and the Bank, to annul the aforementioned search warrant, upon the ground that, in issuing the same, the municipalcourt had acted with grave abuse of discretion, without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction. Theyassailed that the search warrant is general in its terms and that the use of the word “and others” permits the unreasonable search and seizure of documents which have no relation to any specific criminal act.

Issues: W/Nthe issuance of the search warrant violates the constitutional provision in issuing a valid search warrant

Ratio: NO.

Ruling:Again, the aforementioned order would seem to assume that an illegal banking transaction, of the kind contemplated in the contested action of the officers of the Bank, must always connote the existence of a "victim." If this term is used to denote a party whose interests have been actually injured, then the assumption is not necessarily justified. The law requiring compliance with certain requirements before anybody can engage in banking obviously seeks to protect the public against actual, as well as potential, injury. Similarly, we are not aware of any rule limiting the use of warrants to papers or effects which cannot be secured otherwise.

The line of reasoning of respondent Judge might, perhaps, be justified if the acts imputed to the Organization consisted of isolated transactions, distinct and different from the type of business in which it is generally engaged. In such case, it may be necessary to specify or identify the parties involved in said isolated transactions, so that the search and seizure be limited to the records pertinent thereto. Such, however, is not the situation confronting us. The records suggest clearly that the transactions objected to by the Bank constitute the general pattern of the business of the Organization. Indeed, the main purpose thereof, according to its By-laws, is "to extend financial assistance, in the form of loans, to its members," with funds deposited by them.

Notes:

These are enumerated on the application for the search warrant mentioned:

I. BOOKS OF ORIGINAL ENTRY

(1) General Journal

(2) Columnar Journal or Cash Book

(a) Cash Receipts Journal or Cash Receipt Book

(b) Cash Disbursements Journal or Cash Disbursement Book

II. BOOKS OF FINAL ENTRY

(1) General Ledger

(2) Individual Deposits and Loans Ledgers

(3) Other Subsidiary Ledgers

III. OTHER ACCOUNTING RECORDS

(1) Application for Membership

(2) Signature Card

(3) Deposit Slip

(4) Passbook Slip

(5) Withdrawal Slip

(6) Tellers Daily Deposit Report

(7) Application for Loan Credit Statement

(8) Credit Report

(9) Solicitor's Report

(10) Promissory Note

(11) I n d o r s e m e n t

(12) Co-makers' Statements

(13) Chattel Mortgage Contracts

(14) Real Estate Mortgage Contracts

(15) Trial Balance

(16) Minutes Book — Board of Directors

IV. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1) Income and Expenses Statements

(2) Balance Sheet or Statement of Assets and Liabilities

V. OTHERS

(1) Articles of Incorporation

(2) By-Laws

(3) Prospectus, Brochures Etc.

(4) And other documents and articles which are being used or intended to be used in unauthorized banking activities and operations contrary to law.