G.R. No. L-10448; August 30, 1957
IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE NO. 3659 OF THE CITY OF MANILA. PHYSICAL THERAPY ORGANIZATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA and ARSENIO H. LACSON, as Mayor of the City of Manila, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The petitioner-appellant, an association of registered massagists and licensed operators of massage clinics, filed an action for declaratory judgment in the Court of First Instance of Manila regarding the validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 3659 of the City of Manila. The petitioner secured an injunction to stop the enforcement of the ordinance. The parties submitted the case for decision on the pleadings without introducing evidence. The trial court dismissed the petition and dissolved the injunction. The petitioner appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the City of Manila lacked authority to regulate the operation of massagists and massage clinics, arguing that such power, previously under the Old City Charter, was now vested in the Director of Health through administrative orders. It also contended that the ordinance restricted the practice of massage to only hygienic and aesthetic massage, thereby prohibiting therapeutic massage, and that the permit fee of P100.00 for operators was unreasonable.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether Municipal Ordinance No. 3659 of the City of Manila is valid, specifically: (1) whether the Municipal Board had the authority to enact it; (2) whether it improperly restricts the practice of massage to hygienic and aesthetic purposes, thereby prohibiting therapeutic massage; and (3) whether the permit fee of P100.00 is unreasonable.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 3659. The Court ruled that:
1. The Municipal Board of Manila had the authority to enact the ordinance under Section 18, subsection (kk) of Republic Act 409 (the Revised Charter of Manila), which grants the Board the power to enact ordinances for the health and safety, and to promote the morality, peace, and general welfare of the city’s inhabitants. The purpose of the ordinance was not to regulate the practice of massage itself, but to prevent the commission of immorality and prostitution in establishments masquerading as massage clinics. The Court interpreted the ordinance as not prohibiting the practice of therapeutic massage by qualified massagists in their clinics.
2. The permit fee of P100.00 for operators is not unreasonable. The fee is imposed on the operator of the clinic, not the massagist. The Court cited that a larger fee may be imposed on occupations considered inimical to public health, morals, or safety without being deemed a tax for revenue, as the Municipal Board evidently considered the operation of such clinics to be potentially conducive to immorality and thus subject to regulation through the fee.
The ordinance was declared valid as interpreted by the Court and intended by the appellees.