City of Manila vs.

Laguio
G.R. No. 118127, Apr. 12, 2005
Facts:
Petitioner City of Manila enacted an ordinance prohibiting the establishment or
operation of businesses providing certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and
facilities in the Ermita-Malate area wherein women are used as tools in entertainment and
which tend to disturb the community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely affect the social
and moral welfare of the community, such as but not limited to sauna parlors, massage
parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, day clubs, super clubs, discotheques, cabarets,
dance halls, motels and inns. Those who were engaged in the aforementioned businesses were
given 3 months from date of approval of the ordinance within which to wind up business
operations or to transfer to any place outside Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to
other kinds of business allowable within the area.
Private respondent Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC), a corporation
engaged in the business of operating hotels, motels, hostels and lodging houses, and owner of
the hotel Victoria Court, filed a petition for declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary
injunction with the RTC of Manila, against the City Mayor and City Council of Manila upon
grounds therein stated.
Petitioners pointed out that the Council had the power to prohibit certain forms of
entertainment in order to protect the social and moral welfare of the community as provided in
Sec. 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the Local Government Code. They likewise asserted that the ordinance
was enacted to protect the social and moral welfare of the community in conjunction with the
governments police power under Art. III, Sec. 18 (kk) of R.A No. 409 otherwise known as
the Revised Charter of Manila.
After trial, the court rendered its decision declaring the ordinance null and void.
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue:
WON the said ordinance violates the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the
Constitution.
Ruling:
Yes. Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects, in
other words, should not be treated differently, as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminate against others. The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be
denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like
circumstances. The equal protection clause extends to artificial persons but only insofar as
their property is concerned.
In the Courts view, there are no substantial distinctions between motels, inns, pension
houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. By definition, all are
commercial establishments providing lodging and usually meals and other services for the
public. No reason exists for prohibiting motels and inns but not pension houses, hotels,
lodging houses or other similar establishments. The classification in the instant case is invalid
as similar subjects are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations
imposed. It is arbitrary as it does not rest on substantial distinctions bearing a just and fair
relation to the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Court likewise cannot see the logic for prohibiting the business and operation of
motels in the Ermita-Malate area but not outside of this area. A noxious establishment does
not become any less noxious if located outside the area.
The standard where women are used as tools for entertainment is also
discriminatory as prostitution-one of the hinted ills the Ordinance aims to banish is not a
profession exclusive to women. Both men and women have an equal propensity to engage in
prostitution. It is not any less grave a sin when men engage in it. And why would the

assumption that there is an ongoing immoral activity apply only when women are employed
and be inapposite when men are in harness? This discrimination based on gender violates
equal protection as it is not substantially related to important government objectives. Thus, the
discrimination is invalid.
Failing the test of constitutionality, the Ordinance likewise failed to pass the test of
consistency with prevailing laws.