REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

EN BANC

MOTEL ASSOCIATION OF
METRO MANILA,
represented by its president
TERISITA NATIVIDAD
CLEOFAS – DE
VILLASONOR,
Petitioner,

- versus - G. R. No. ___________

CITY OF MANILA,
represented by MAYOR
JOSEPH EJERCITO
ESTRADA,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW RESPONDENT, through the undersigned

counsels, unto the Honorable Supreme Court most
respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the
above-titled case, and aver that:

PREFATORY

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the

Revised Rules of Court, with prayer for the issuance of
Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO), seeking to declare unconstitutional
the enacted City Ordinance No. 8888 known as ―An
Ordinance Requiring All Motels In The City To Require All
Guests To Present Proof Of Identification and Imposing
Penalty‖ which took effect on January 01, 2015.
MEMORANDUM 2
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

THE PARTIES

Respondent City of Manila, represented by Mayor Joseph

Ejercito Estrada, with address at Manila City Hall, Aroceros
St. Ermita, Manila, where he ma be served with legal
processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court.

Petitioner Motel Association of Metro Manila, represented

by Teresita Natividad Cleofas – de Villasonor, with address at
The Manila Motel, One Rizal Park, 0913 Manila, and may be
served with legal processes and other judicial notices thereto.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2015, herein Petitioner filed a Petition for

Certiorari, against the Respondent.

On February 06, 2015, an Answer was filed by the

Respondent.

On March 10, 2015, both parties submitted their pre-

trial briefs.

Pre-trial conference was held on March 12, 2015.

On March 12, 2015, the trial proper commenced.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The events that led to the filing of the present Petition are
summarized as follows:

On December 01, 2014, the City Council of the City of

Manila (City Council) issued Ordinance No. 8888 (the
Ordinance) which requires all motels in the City of Manila to
require all its guests to present first a valid proof of
identification before they could avail of the services offered by
MEMORANDUM 3
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

such establishment. After the required publication, the City

Ordinance became effective on January 01, 2015.

The herein petitioner, Motel Association of Metro Manila,

alleged in this petition 1 that the newly enacted Ordinance
grossly contravenes the 1987 Constitution, quoting Sections 1,
2 and 14(1) of the Bill of Rights.

The petitioner asserts that it represents the owners of the

Motels whose businesses are directly affected by the
Ordinance. The petitioner also asserts that it also represents
the clients/customers of the motel owners.

The petitioner also alleged in this petition, which was

filed on 26 January 2015 or barely one month after the
effectivity of the Ordinance, that their income has
continuously decline and that there has been a comparably
significant decrease in the number of their guests after the
effectivity of the Ordinance.

On pre-trial, it was stipulated as a fact that the

Ordinance covers only motels; that the Ordinance is valid, as
least as to its procedure; and that the enactment of the
Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power of the local
government.

THE ISSUES OF THE CASE

The herein parties have raised similar issues in their pre-

trial briefs, as follows:

1. In filing their petition directly with the Supreme Court,

whether the petitioners patently disregarded the doctrine of
judicial hierarchy.

2. Whether Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 is the

proper remedy for the petitioner.

1
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, With Prayer for a Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction
and/or Temporary Restraining Order.
MEMORANDUM 4
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

3. Whether Ordinance No. 8888 violates the

Constitutional Right to Liberty, Due Process, and Property of
the Motel owners and Operators.

ARGUMENTS

I.

THE FILING OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT BY-
PASSING THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS A PATENT
DISREGARD OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY.

II.

NO SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT REASONS WERE

CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY SET OUT IN THE
PETITON TO WARRANT THIS COURT’S TIME
AND ATTENTION WHICH SHOULD BE BETTER
DEVOTED TO THOSE MATTERS WITHIN ITS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

III.

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI MUST BE

DISMISSED AS IT IS NOT THE PROPER
REMEDY.

IV.

THE MEANS EMPLOYED ARE REASONABLY

NECESSARY FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
THE PURPOSE.

V.
MEMORANDUM 5
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

THE CITY ORDINANCE DOES NOT VIOLATE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF LIBERTY OF
A PERSON.

VI.

THE CITY ORDINANCE DOES NOT VIOLATE

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.

VII.

THE CITY ORDINANCE DOES NOT VIOLATE

THE MOTEL OWNERS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO THEIR PROPERTY.

VIII.

PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE

EXISTENCE OF A RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED
WARRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF THE
INJUCTIVE RELIEF PRAYED FOR.

DISCUSSION

I. The filing of Petition for

Certiorari directly to the
Supreme Court, by-passing the
authority and jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court is a
patent disregard of Judicial
Hierarchy warranting dismissal

II. No special and

important and reasons were
clearly and specifically set-out
in the petition to warrant This
Court’s time and attention,
which should be better devoted
to those matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction.
MEMORANDUM 6
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

______________________________

Jurisprudence dictates that the Regional Trial Courts has

jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of an Ordinance
while Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over such. We
quote from the case of Evelyn Ongusco and Antonia Salaya
vs. Honorable Mariano Malones2, as follows:

―Paragraph 2(a) of Section 5, Article VIII of the

Constitution, expressly establishes the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court, and impliedly recognizes
the original jurisdiction of lower courts over cases
involving the constitutionality or validity of an
ordinance:

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers:

―x x x x

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on

appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or

validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.‖

Following the stated laws and the jurisprudence will lead us to

the conclusion that the filing of the petition directly with the
Supreme Court violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. In
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc.
(CREBA) v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform 3 , a petition for
certiorari filed under Rule 65 was dismissed for having been
filed directly with the Court, violating the principle of
hierarchy of courts, to wit:

―Primarily, although this Court, the Court of

Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have
2 GR No. 182065, October 27, 2009
3 G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 295, 309-310
MEMORANDUM 7
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,

prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not
give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum. In Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,
citing People v. Cuaresma, this Court made the
following pronouncements:

This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs

of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by this
Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the
Court of Appeals. This concurrence of
jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as
according to parties seeking any of the writs an
absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the
court to which application therefor will be
directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts.
That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of
appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of
the appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that
judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that
petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs
against first level ("inferior") courts should be
filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those
against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A
direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s
original jurisdiction to issue these writs should
be allowed only when there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition. This is [an]
established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent
inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and
attention which are better devoted to those matters
within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent
further over-crowding of the Court’s docket.‖

The herein petition for Certiorari should have been filed with
the Regional Trial Court, it having the authority to exercise
original jurisdiction. The petition contains no special and
important reasons why direct resort to the Supreme Court
should be allowed. What the petitioner did was identical to
what CREBA did in the above-cited case. The Supreme Court
dismissed the petition for certiorari of CREBA for having it
MEMORANDUM 8
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

filed directly with Supreme Court. The same consequence is

warranted for this present petition.

III. The Petition for

Certiorari is Not a Proper
Remedy.
______________________________

"The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that the

Court issues only under closely defined grounds and
procedures that litigants and their lawyers must scrupulously
observe.4

Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

provides:

SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any

tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The case of Salva Cion Villanueva vs Palawan Council for

Sustainable Development5 listed the following requisites which
must concur for a petition for Certiorari to prosper:

"(a) The writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or

officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

(b) Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted

without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; and
4 CREBA vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform, ibid.
5 GR No. 178347, February 25, 2013
MEMORANDUM 9
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

(c) There is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."

In the case at bar, the public respondent City of Manila is not

a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions. Further, the requisite letter (c) is also not met, the
petitioner failed to show that there is no plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In the case of Liga ng Mga Barangay National vs City Mayor of

Manila6, the petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 seeking nullification of the City Ordinance for being
contrary to law. This Court dismissed the petition and ruled
that Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the correct
remedy. This Court, in the above-mentioned case, ruled that
the City Mayor of Manila does not exercise judicial or quasi-
judicial functions, to wit:

―A respondent is said to be
exercising judicial function where he has the power
to determine what the law is and what the legal
rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to
determine these questions and adjudicate upon the
rights of the parties.

Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is ―a

term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of
public administrative officers or bodies … required
to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of
facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from
them as a basis for their official action and to
exercise discretion of a judicial nature.‖

Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise

judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that
there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights
of persons or property under which adverse claims
to such rights are made, and the controversy
ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal,
board, or officer clothed with power and authority to
determine the law and adjudicate the respective

6 GR No. 154599, January 21, 2004

MEMORANDUM 10
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

rights of the contending parties.

The respondents do not fall within the ambit

of tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. As correctly pointed out by
the respondents, the enactment by the City Council
of Manila of the assailed ordinance and the
issuance by respondent Mayor of the questioned
executive order were done in the exercise of
legislative and executive functions, respectively, and
not of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. On this
score alone, certiorari will not lie.‖

The same is true with this instant Petition for Certiorari.

The City Council of Manila, being not a tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, then
Petition for Certiorari shall not lie, Petition for Declaratory
Relief shall be more appropriate.

IV. The means employed

are reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the
Purpose
______________________________

Both the parties agree that teenage prostitution and

pregnancy abounds in Metro Manila. The testimony of Dr.
Leandro Pagkatipunan, the witness presented by the
petitioner, affirmed this in his study. The witness stated in his
judicial affidavit that teenage pregnancy is a societal problem
and the community has something to do with it. As for the
key factors contributing to the societal problem, the witness
mentioned family, peer group, education, and community.
When asked about some solutions to combat the societal
problem at hand, the witness suggested parenting seminars
and workshops, contraceptives, and sex education.7

The sincerity and dedication of the Public Respondent

City of Manila to curb the immoral prostitution and teenage
pregnancy that looms around within its jurisdiction is

7 Judicial Affidavit of Dr. Leandro Pagkatipunan

MEMORANDUM 11
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

unparalleled. Seminars and workshops in various topics such

as family planning, values formation in the family, family
unity, among others, had been held in several dates at several
places around Metro Manila. Sex education had also been
incorporated in the subjects in Elementary and High School.
Work programs and Sports Clinic program for the youths have
been initiated and implemented by the City of Manila. Yet,
still, a lot of children engaged in immoral conducts of pre-
marital sex and prostitution.

As shown in Exhibit C-1, the increase in reported teenage

prostitution and teenage pregnancy runs in parallel with the
increase in numbers of motel establishment in Metro Manila.
This important data cannot be ignored, nor be taken as just
coincidental. For it can be observed that where the motels
are, teenage prostitution abounds.

The petitioner’s witness, Dr. Leandro Pagkatipunan, in

his judicial affidavit, when ask whether he would recommend
monitoring inns, and motels and similar establishments to
redress the societal problem, he answered: ―Yes, I would, but
I’d rather have a more direct and forward solution.‖ It can be
noted that all the solutions suggested by Dr. Pagkatipunan
were already implemented by the City of Manila.

There was no showing that the monitoring of inns,

motels, and similar establishments was not reasonable. If
fact, the petitioner’s witness affirmed that he would
recommend it. Such procedure is not unusual in the industry
of hotel, motel, inns and pension houses. In fact, in the hotel
industry, such procedure sought to be implemented by the
Ordinance was already placed in operation as reflected in
Exhibits A-10.

Hotels and Motels are very similar and identical. In fact,

some motels classify themselves are hotels also. Motels and
Hotels offer identical and similar services. The difference lies
on the operating procedures adopted and employed by hotels
and motels. Hotels do not allow short time renting of units,
while motels do. However, there is no hindrance should the
customer of the hotel chose to leave or check-out early, nor
there is hindrance should the motel customer wish to stay for
24 hours. Looking at these facts, it is quite confusing why
motel owners heavily opposed such basic procedure of
MEMORANDUM 12
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

identification of customers when in fact such procedure was a

standard operating procedure in hotel operations. Unless
there are secret activities which are illegal are happening
oftentimes in the motel rooms, and the owners are aware of it,
they that would explain their vehement oppositions to the
identification of customers prior to the availment of their
services.

Neither can the procedure be oppressive to the motel

operators. The petitioner has shown no evidence that they
were oppressed by the enactment of the Ordinance. On the
contrary, Exhibit A-11 proves that the adoption and
implementation of the hotel owners of the standard operating
procedure, which includes the identification of customers,
improves the quality of their services which increased their
customer satisfaction and further translated to increased in
income over five years.

This Court, in US vs Torbio8 expressed that ―to justify the

State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public,
it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally,
as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such
interference; and, second, that the means are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals.”

To recap, the City of Manila, in enacting and

implementing the Ordinance to curb immoral teenage
prostitution and teenage pregnancy, acts in the interest of the
public, and that the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and that
the means employed was not unduly oppressive upon the
petitioner.

V.
The City Ordinance
does not violate the
Constitutional Right to Liberty
of a Person.
______________________________

8 GR No. L-5060, January 26, 2010

MEMORANDUM 13
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

The petitioner alleged that the Ordinance arbitrarily

restrains the person to avail the services of motel and hotel of
their choice. The petitioner did not elaborate this statement in
their petition nor gave any argument or evidence in the trial.

It is clear that the Ordinance only requires the motel to

have proper identification of the customer before having them
avail of their services. The customers are not prohibited from
availing the services of the motels, nor was their choice limited
by the Ordinance.

Even some government buildings and offices would

require a person to present a competent identification card
first before he shall be allowed to enter or to transact, i.e.
Bureau of Internal Revenue, Social Security Services.
Moreover, it is now ordinary and natural for any persons to
always bring with him an identification card wherever he goes.

In as much as the petitioner quoted the words of Justice

Malcolm to define constitutional liberty to include the right to
exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or
servitude, we shall also quote the words of Justice Malcolm to
complete the image of liberty, thus:

'Liberty' as understood in democracies, is not

license; it is 'liberty regulated by law.' Implied in the
term is restraint by law for the good of the
individual and for the greater good of the peace and
order of society and the general well-being. No man
can do exactly as he pleases. Every man must
renounce unbridled license. The right of the
individual is necessarily subject to reasonable
restraint by general law for the common good x x
x The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the
interest of the public health, or of the public order
and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of
the police power."9

A similar observation was made by Justice Laurel, to

quote:

9Rubi v. Provincial Board, (1919) 39 Phil. 660, at 706, citing Hall v. Geiger-Jones (1916), 242 U.S. 539;
Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Co. vs. Cruz (1914), 189 Ala. 66.
MEMORANDUM 14
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

"Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the

enactment of said law, and the state in order to
promote the general welfare may interfere with
personal liberty, with property, and with business
and occupations. Persons and property may be
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens,
in order to secure the general comfort, health,
and prosperity of the state x x x To this
fundamental aim of our Government the rights of
the individual are subordinated. Liberty is a
blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty
should not be made to prevail over authority
because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither
should authority be made to prevail over liberty
because then the individual will fall into slavery.
The citizen should achieve the required balance of
liberty and authority in his mind through education
and personal discipline, so that there may be
established the resultant equilibrium, which means
peace and order and happiness for all.10

Whatever liberty is it that the petitioner alleged to be

subjected to arbitrarily restrain, that liberty is not absolute,
and is subject to police power of the local government.

VI. The City Ordinance

does not violate Due Process
Clause.
______________________________

The petitioner alleged that the City Ordinance arbitrarily

imposed on the motel owners, regulation on the entry of their
clients without prior consultation. The petitioner argues that
motel owners are entitled to know the substance of the
ordinance because it will greatly affect their business.

However, during the pre-trial conference, the petitioner

entered in the stipulation of facts that the Ordinance was a
valid Ordinance, at least as to procedure, to quote from T.S.N.:

―Atty. Empleo: We would like to stipulate, your

10 Calalang v. Williams (1940), 70 Phil. 726, at 733-734

MEMORANDUM 15
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

honor, that the Ordinance is a valid Ordinance.

Court: (to the respondent’s counsel) Do you have

any comment on that?

Atty. Flores: None, your honor, we completely agree

with the petitioner.

Court: Are you sure? Think again.

Atty. Flores: We are sure, your honor.

Court: Really? Because if the Ordinance is valid

then we don’t have an issue anymore.

Atty. Flores: We have no problem with that, your

honor.

Atty. Empleo: Your honor, we would like to stipulate

that the Ordinance is valid procedurally.

Court: Noted.‖

No evidence was presented to the Court to bolster the

allegations of the petitioner in their petition. The Court, in
Antonio Reyes vs. Court of Appeals 11 reinforced that the
burden of proof lies on the person questioning the
constitutionality of an Ordinance, to wit:

―Furthermore, the lack of a public hearing is a

negative allegation essential to petitioner’s cause of
action in the present case. Hence, as petitioner is
the party asserting it, she has the burden of
proof. Since petitioner failed to rebut the
presumption of validity in favor of the subject
ordinances and to discharge the burden of proving
that no public hearings were conducted prior to the
enactment thereof, we are constrained to uphold
their constitutionality or legality.‖

In the case at bar, the petitioner’s allegation of violation

of due process due to lack of prior consultation must fail,

11 GR No. 118233, December 10, 1999

MEMORANDUM 16
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

because: (1) the petitioner is already estopped from asserting

it after having it stipulated as fact that the ―Ordinance was
valid, at least procedurally‖; and (2) failure of the petitioner to
discharge the burden of proving a negative allegation.

VII. The City Ordinance

does not violate the motel
owners constitutional right to
their property.
______________________________

The petitioner alleged in the petition that the Ordinance

divest them of the beneficial use of their property; that Section
1 of the Ordinance forbids the running of certain businesses
in the Ermita-Manila area; and Section 3 of said Ordinance
instruct owners/operators to wind up their business
operations or to transfer outside the area or convert the
businesses into allowed businesses12.

We deny such allegations, such words were not written in

the Ordinance. It is fatal for the petitioner to assail the
constitutionality and validity of the Ordinance without having
a certified true copy of the Ordinance attached to their
petition. Although page 4 of the petition reflects an unverified
excerpt of the Ordinance, such is inconsistent with the
petitioner’s claim. The statement of the petitioner that the
Ordinance ―forbids the running of the enumerated businesses
in the Ermita-Manila‖ cannot be traced to the Ordinance.
Perhaps, the petitioner is looking at another Ordinance, thus
the confusion arise. With the same tone, the statement of the
petitioner that ―Section 3 instructs its owners/operators to
wind up business operations or to transfer outside the area or
convert said businesses into allowed businesses‖ cannot be
directly traced to the Ordinance, much more Section 3 of the
said Ordinance.

At any rate, the Section 458(a)(4)(iv) of the Local

Government Code empowers the Sangguniang Panlungsod
or the City Council to regulate activities relative to the use of
certain properties, regulate establishment like motels, to wit:

12 Petition for Certirari, page 8

MEMORANDUM 17
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

Section 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and

Compensation.

(a) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the legislative

body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve
resolutions and appropriate funds for the general
welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to
Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of
the corporate powers of the city as provided for
under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:

xxx xxx xxx

(4) Regulate activities relative to the use of land,

buildings and structures within the city in order to
promote the general welfare and for said purpose
shall:

(iv) Regulate the establishment, operation and

maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses,
hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging
houses, and other similar establishments, including
tourist guides and transports;

The Ordinance does not prohibit the establishment of

motels, nor does the Ordinance forbids the operation of the
existing motels, but rather, the Ordinance do regulate the
business practice, and this is a legitimate exercise of police
power of the local government as elaborated on the first
argument above.

The petitioner stated that restriction on use of property

may also constitute a ―taking‖ of not reasonably necessary to
the effectuation of a substantial public purpose or if it has an
unduly harsh impact on the distinct investment-backed
expectations of the owner13. While we agree on this, we cannot
see how the Ordinance requiring guests to identify themselves
be a restriction on the use of property.

13 Petition for Certiorari, page 9

MEMORANDUM 18
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

VIII. Petitioner has not

established the existence of a
right to be protected
warranting the issuance of the
injunctive relief prayed for.
______________________________

It is well to note at the outset that a temporary

restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is a
limitation upon the freedom of action and should not be
granted lightly or precipitately. It should be granted only
when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the
emergency demands it.14

To justify the issuance of the injunctive reliefs prayed for,

the movant must show (1) the existence of a right in esse or
the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against
which injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right.15
The burden is on the movant to show that there exist a right to
be protected which is directly threatened by the act sought to
be enjoined. Further, it must be shown that the invasion of
the right is material, substantial and there is an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious or
irreparable damage.16

Petitioner in this case has not discharged such burden.

He is thus not entitled to the injunctive writ prayed for.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully

prayed of the Honorable Court that the instant Petition be
DENIED for lack of merit or be DISMISSED for the grounds
stated above.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are

likewise prayed for.

City of Manila, April 19, 2015

14
Olalia vs. Hizon, 196 SCRA 665 (1991).
15
Phil. Sinter Corp. vs Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., 380 SCRA 582 (2002).
16
Gustilo vs Real, 353 SCRA 1 (2001).
MEMORANDUM 19
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

EDISON T. FLORES
City Prosecutor, Manila
Roll No. 12121
IBP Lifetime No. 00121
MCLE Exemption No. III-0012121

JEZREEL P. ZAPANTA
Assistant Prosecutor, Manila
Roll No. 87878
IBP Lifetime No. 008787
MCLE Exemption No. IV-000878

COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. DANIEL JOSE E. EMPLEO

Head Counsel for Petitioner Motel Association of Metro Manila
V.E.N. and Associates Law Offices
7F Fr. Francis Building
0808 Bukang Liwayway St.
Malate, Manila

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Memorandum is being filed and served by

registered mail due to lack of manpower.

JEZREEL P. ZAPANTA
Assistant City Prosecutor
MEMORANDUM 20
Motel Association of Metro Manila vs. City of Manila
G. R. No. ________________
x-------------------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Trudis Lagpas-Tao, of legal age and having been duly sworn

depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Attys. Edison Flores and Jezreel

Zapanta, counsels for public respondent in the case entitled ―Motel
Association of Metro Manila vs City of Manila‖, GR No. ______________,
and as such messenger I served upon the counsels of the adverse party,
the Judicial Affidavit of Loley Murmur brief filed in said case:

By depositing the copy in the post office in sealed

envelope, plainly addressed to the counsels at their office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if
undelivered, this 19th day of April 2015, as shown by
Registry No. 12347 dated 19 April 2015 of the post office of
City of Manila.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 19th day

of April at City of Manila.

(SGD.) TRUDIS LAGPAS-TAO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 19th day of April 2015

at City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver's License No.
11223344 which will expire on April 26, 2017.

(SGD.) MIKES JORDS

Notary Public
Metro Manila

Doc. No. _______;

Page No. _______;
Book No. _______;
Series of 2015.