Cruz v. Paras

Cruz v.
Paras
123 SCRA 569
FACTS: Petitioners (Vicente Dela Cruz, Renato Alipio, and Leoncio Corpuz),
who are owners and operators of night clubs contended that the ordinance
(with reference to RA No. 938) assailed as invalid is tainted with nullity, the
municipality being devoid of power to prohibit a lawful business, occupation or
calling, petitioners at the same time alleging that their rights to due process
and equal protection of the laws were violated as the licenses previously given
to them was in effect withdrawn without judicial hearing. Also, under
Presidential Decree No. 189, as amended, by Presidential Decree No. 259, the
power to license and regulate tourist-oriented businesses including night
clubs, has been transferred to the Department of Tourism."
The assailed Ordinance No. 84 is worded as follows: "Section 1. - Title
of Ordinance. - This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the
[Prohibition and Closure Ordinance] of Bocaue, Bulacan.
Section 3. — Prohibition in the Issuance and Renewal of Licenses,
Permits. — …no operator of night clubs, cabarets or dance halls shall
henceforth be issued permits/licenses to operate within the jurisdiction of the
municipality…. the prohibition in the issuance of licenses/permits to said
persons and operators of said establishments shall include prohibition in the
renewal thereof.
It was in reference to Republic Act No. 938. It is entitled: “AN ACT
GRANTING MUNICIPAL OR CITY BOARDS AND COUNCILS THE POWER TO
REGULATE THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF
CERTAIN PLACES OF AMUSEMENT WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS.”
"Sec. 1 - The municipal or city board or council of each chartered city
shall have the power to regulate by ordinance the establishment, maintenance
and operation of night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools, pavilions, cockpits,
bars, saloons, bowling alleys, billiard pools, and other similar places of
amusement within its territorial jurisdiction: ... "
The first section was amended to include not merely "the power to
regulate, but likewise "Prohibit ..." The title, however, remained the same. It is
worded exactly as Republic Act No. 938.
ISSUE: Whether a municipal corporation, Bocaue, Bulacan, represented by

respondents, 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: NO.
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. This Court had stressed
reasonableness, consonant with the general powers and purposes of municipal
corporations, as well as consistency with the laws or policy of the State.
The exact wording in the title of RA 938 is to be followed. The power
granted remains that of regulation, not prohibition.
Since there is no dispute as the title limits the power to regulating, not
prohibiting, it would result in the statute being invalid if, as was done by the
Municipality of Bocaue, the operation of a night club was prohibited.
There is reinforcement to the conclusion reached by virtue of a specific
provision of the recently-enacted Local Government Code.
The general welfare clause of Section 149 defining the powers and duties
of the sangguniang bayan. (Regulate – regulate, there is no word for
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. It would be, therefore, an exercise in futility if the decision under
review were sustained. All that petitioners would have to do is to apply once
more for licenses to operate night clubs. A refusal to grant licenses, because no
such businesses could legally open, would be subject to judicial correction. In
the meanwhile, to compel petitioners to close their establishments, the
necessary result of an affirmance, would amount to no more than a temporary
termination of their business.
What was involved is a measure not embraced within the regulatory
power but an exercise of an assumed power to prohibit. Moreover, while it was
pointed out in the aforesaid Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
Association, Inc. decision that there must be a factual foundation of invalidity,
it was likewise made clear that there is no need to satisfy such a requirement if
a statute were void on its face. That it certainly is if the power to enact such
ordinance is at the most dubious and under the present Local Government
Code non-existent.

Cruz v. Paras

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz v. Paras

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz v. Paras

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz v.

ISSUE: Whether a municipal corporation, Bocaue, Bulacan, represented by

You might also like