KWONG SING

VS.

CITY OF MANILA
[41 Phil 103; G.R. No. 15972; 11 Oct 1920]

Facts:
Kwong Sing, in his own behalf and of other Chinese laundrymen who has general and
the same interest,filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs also
questioned the validity of enforcingOrdinance No. 532 by the city of Manila. Ordinance
No. 532 requires that the receipt be in duplicate inEnglish and Spanish duly signed
showing the kind and number of articles delivered by laundries anddyeing and
cleaning establishments. The permanent injunction was denied by the trial
court. Theappellants claim is that Ordinance No. 532 savors of class legislation; putting
in mind that they areChinese nationals. It unjustly discriminates between persons in
similar circumstances; and that itconstitutes an arbitrary infringement of
property rights. They also contest that the enforcement of thelegislation is an act
beyond the scope of their police power. In view of the foregoing, this is an appealwith
the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no, 532 is an act beyond the scope of
police powerWhether or Not the enforcement of the same is a class legislation that
infringes property rights.
Held:
Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the
police power. Thepolice power of the City of Manila to enact Ordinance No. 532 is
based on Section 2444, paragraphs (l)and (ee) of the Administrative Code, as amended
by Act No. 2744, authorizes the municipal board of thecity of Manila, with the approval
of the mayor of the city:(l) To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for the
following: xxxxxxxxxlaundries xxxx.(ee) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary
and proper for the sanitation andsafety, the furtherance of the prosperity, and the
promotion of the morality, peace, goodorder, comfort, convenience, and general welfare
of the city and its inhabitants.The court held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No.
532 was to avoid disputes betweenlaundrymen and their patrons and to protect
customers of laundries who are not able to decipher Chinesecharacters from being
defrauded. (Considering that in the year 1920s, people of Manila are more familiarwith
Spanish and maybe English.)In whether the ordinance is class legislation, the court held
that the ordinance invades no fundamentalright, and impairs no personal privilege.
Under the guise of police regulation, an attempt is not made toviolate personal property
rights. The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation.It
applies to all public laundries without distinction, whether they belong to Americans,
Filipinos, Chinese,or any other nationality. All, without exception, and each every one of
them without distinction, mustcomply with the ordinance. The obvious objection for the
implementation of the ordinance is based insec2444 (ee) of the Administrative Code.
Although, an additional burden will be imposed on the businessand occupation affected
by the ordinance such as that of the appellant by learning even a few words inSpanish
or English, but mostly Arabic numbers in order to properly issue a receipt, it seems that
the sameburdens are cast upon the them. Yet, even if private rights of person or
property are subjected torestraint, and even if loss will result to individuals from the
enforcement of the ordinance, this is notsufficient ground for failing to uphold the power
of the legislative body. The very foundation of the policepower is the control of private
interests for the public welfare.Finding that the ordinance is valid, judgment is affirmed,
and the petition for a preliminary injunction isdenied, with costs against the appellants