37 Physical Therapy vs. Municipal Board 101 Phil 1142

8/11/2019 37 Physical Therapy vs. Municipal Board 101 Phil 1142

1/5

G.R. No. L-10448 August 30, 1957

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR DELARATOR! "#DGMENT REGARDING

THE $ALIDIT! OF M#NIIPAL ORDINANE NO. 3%59 OF THE IT! OF MANILA.

PH!&IAL THERAP! ORGANI'ATION OF THE PHILIPPINE&, IN.,petitioner-

appellant,vs.

THE M#NIIPAL (OARD OF THE IT! OF MANILA )*+ AR&ENIO H. LA&ON, )s

M)o o t/ t o M)*2),respondents-appellees.

Mariano M. de Joya for appellant.

City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscal Arsenio Naawa for appellees.

MONTEMA!OR, J.

The petitioner-appellant, an association of registered massagists and licensed operators of

massage clinics in the City of Manila and other parts of the country, filed an action in the Courtof First Instance of Manila for declaratory judgment regarding the validity of Municipal

Ordinance No. !"#, promulgated $y the Municipal %oard and approved $y the City Mayor. Tostop the City from enforcing said ordinance, the petitioner secured an injunction upon filing of a

$ond in the sum of &',(((.((. ) hearing *as held, $ut the parties *ithout introducing any

evidence su$mitted the case for decision on the pleadings, although they su$mitted *rittenmemoranda. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the petition and later dissolved the *rit of

injunction previously issued.

The petitioner appealed said order of dismissal directly to this Court. In support of its appeal,

petitioner-appellant contends among other things that the trial court erred in holding that the

Ordinance in +uestion has not restricted the practice of massotherapy in massage clinics tohygienic and aesthetic massage, that the Ordinance is valid as it does not regulate the practice of

massage, that the Municipal %oard of Manila has the po*er to enact the Ordinance in +uestion$y virtue of ection ', u$section //0, 1epu$lic )ct 2(#, and that permit fee of &'((.(( is

moderate and not unreasona$le. Inasmuch as the appellant assails and discuss certain provisions

regarding the ordinance in +uestion, and it is necessary to pass upon the same, for purposes of

ready reference, *e are reproducing said ordinance in toto.

O13IN)NC4 No. !"#

)N O13IN)NC4 14567)TIN5 T84 O&41)TION OF M))54 C7INIC IN

T84 CIT9 OF M)NI7) )N3 &1O:I3IN5 &4N)7TI4 FO1 :IO7)TIONT8414OF.

Be it ordained by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, that

ection '.!efinition. ; For the purpose of this Ordinance the follo*ing *ords and

phrases shall $e ta/en in the sense herein$elo* indicated


2/5

a0 Massage clinic shall include any place or esta$lishment used in the practice of

hygienic and aesthetic massage=

$0 8ygienic and aesthetic massage shall include any system of manipulation of treatmentof the superficial parts of the human $ody of hygienic and aesthetic purposes $y ru$$ing,

stro/ing, /neading, or tapping *ith the hand or an instrument=

c0 Massagist shall include any person *ho shall have passed the re+uired e>amination

and shall have $een issued a massagist certificate $y the Committee of 4>aminers ofMassagist, or $y the 3irector of 8ealth or his authori?ed representative=

d0 )ttendant or helper shall include any person employed $y a duly +ualified massagist

in any message clinic to assist the latter in the practice of hygienic and aesthethic

massage=

e0 Operator shall include the o*ner, manager, administrator, or any person *ho operates

or is responsi$le for the operation of a message clinic.

4C. @."er#it Fees. ; No person shall engage in the operation of a massage clinic or in

the occupation of attendant or helper therein *ithout first having o$tained a permittherefor from the Mayor. For every permit granted under the provisions of this

Ordinance, there shall $e paid to the City Treasurer the follo*ing annual feesaminers for Massagists or $y the 3irector of 8ealth

or his authori?ed representatives, in case of massagists.

4C. !.!uty of operator of #assage clinic. ; No operator of massage clinic shall allo*such clinic to operate *ithout a duly +ualified massagist nor allo*, any man or *oman to

act as massagist, attendant or helper therein *ithout the MayorBs permit provided for in

the preceding sections. 8e shall su$mit *henever re+uired $y the Mayor or his authori?ed

representative the persons acting as massagists, attendants or helpers in his clinic. 8eshall place the massage clinic open to inspection at all times $y the police, health officers,

and other la* enforcement agencies of the government, shall $e held lia$le for anything*hich may happen *ith the premises of the massage clinic.

4C. D."enalty. ; )ny person violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall

upon conviction, $e punished $y a fine of not less than fifty pesos nor more than t*o

hundred pesos or $y imprisonment for not less than si> days nor more than si> months, or$oth such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

4C. .%epealing Clause. ; )ll ordinances or parts of ordinances, *hich are

inconsistent here*ith, are here$y repealed.

4C. #.Effecti'ity. ; This Ordinance shall ta/e effect upon its approval.

4nacted, )ugust @D, '#"2.

)pproved, eptem$er D, '#"2.


4/5

The main contention of the appellant in its appeal and the principal ground of its petition for

declaratory judgment is that the City of Manila is *ithout authority to regulate the operation of

massagists and the operation of massage clinics *ithin its jurisdiction= that *hereas under theOld City Charter, particularly, ection @222 e0 of the 1evised )dministrative Code, the

Municipal %oard *as e>pressly granted the po*er to regulate and fi> the license fee for the

occupation of massagists, under the Ne* Charter of Manila, 1epu$lic )ct 2(#, said po*er has$een *ithdra*n or omitted and that no* the 3irector of 8ealth, pursuant to authority conferred

$y ection # of the 1evised )dministrative Code and 4>ecutive Order No. 'D, series of '#2',

as amended $y 4>ecutive Order No. #@, series, '#"', is the one *ho e>ercises supervision overthe practice of massage and over massage clinics in the &hilippines= that the 3irector of 8ealth

has issued )dministrative Order No. '(, dated May ", '#", prescri$ing Arules and regulations

governing the e>amination for admission to the practice of massage, and the operation of

massage clinics, offices, or esta$lishments in the &hilippinesA, *hich order *as approved $y theecretary of 8ealth and duly pu$lished in the Official 5a?ette= that ection ' a0 of Ordinance

No. !"# has restricted the practice of massage to only hygienic and aesthetic massage prohi$its

or does not allo* +ualified massagists to practice therapeutic massage in their massage clinics.

)ppellant also contends that the license fee of &'((.(( for operator in ection @ of the Ordinanceis unreasona$le, nay, unconsciona$le.

If *e can ascertain the intention of the Manila Municipal %oard in promulgating the Ordinance

in +uestion, much of the o$jection of appellant to its legality may $e solved. It *ould appear tous that the purpose of the Ordinance is not to regulate the practice of massage, much less to

restrict the practice of licensed and +ualified massagists of therapeutic massage in the

&hilippines. The end sought to $e attained in the Ordinance is to prevent the commission ofimmorality and the practice of prostitution in an esta$lishment mas+uerading as a massage clinic

*here the operators thereof offer to massage or manipulate superficial parts of the $odies of

customers for hygienic and aesthetic purposes. This intention can readily $e understood $y the

$uilding re+uirements in ection of the Ordinance, re+uiring that there $e separate rooms formale and female customers= that instead of said rooms $eing separated $y permanent partitions

and s*inging doors, there should only $e sliding curtains $et*een them= that there should $e Ano

private rooms or separated compartments, e>cept those assigned for toilet, lavatories, dressingroom, office or /itchenA= that every massage clinic should $e provided *ith only one entrance

and shall have no direct or indirect communication *hatsoever *ith any d*elling place, house or

$uilding= and that no operator, massagists, attendant or helper *ill $e allo*ed Ato use or allo*the use of a massage clinic as a place of assignation or permit the commission therein of any

immoral or incident actA, and in fi>ing the operating hours of such clinic $et*een


5/5

)s to the authority of the City %oard to enact the Ordinance in +uestion, the City Fiscal, in

representation of the appellees, calls our attention to ection ' of the Ne* Charter of the City of

Manila, )ct No. 2(#, *hich gives legislative po*ers to the Municipal %oard to enact allordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the promotion of the morality, peace, good

order, comfort, convenience and general *elfare of the City and its inha$itants. This is generally

referred to as the 5eneral elfare Clause, a delegation in statutory form of the police po*er,under *hich municipal corporations, are authori?ed to enact ordinances to provide for the health

and safety, and promote the morality, peace and general *elfare of its inha$itants. e agree *ith

the City Fiscal.

)s regards the permit fee of &'((.((, it *ill $e seen that said fee is made paya$le not $y themasseur or massagist, $ut $y the operator of a massage clinic *ho may not $e a massagist

himself. Compared to permit fees re+uired in other operations, &'((.(( may appear to $e too

large and rather unreasona$le. 8o*ever, much discretion is given to municipal corporations indetermining the amount of said fee *ithout considering it as a ta> for revenue purposesor an e>ercise of the police po*er. The amount may $e so large as to itself sho* that the

purpose *as to raise revenue and not to regulate, $ut in regard to this matter there is amar/ed distinction $et*een license fees imposed upon useful and $eneficial occupations

*hich the sovereign *ishes to regulate $ut not restrict, and those *hich are ini#ical and

dangerous to public health, #orals or safety. (n the latter case the fee #ay be 'ery largewithout necessarily being a ta). Cooley on Ta>ation, :ol. I:, pp. "'!-'D= underlining

supplied.0

4vidently, the Manila Municipal %oard considered the practice of hygienic and aesthetic

massage not as a useful and $eneficial occupation *hich *ill promote and is conducive to pu$lic

morals, and conse+uently, imposed the said permit fee for its regulation.

In conclusion, *e find and hold that the Ordinance in +uestion as *e interpret it and as intended

$y the appellees is valid. e deem it unnecessary to discuss and pass upon the other points raised

in the appeal. The order appealed from is here$y affirmed. No costs.

Documents

37 Physical Therapy vs. Municipal Board 101 Phil 1142