GR L 16946; (July, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16946; July 31, 1962
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO I. VENTURA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Guillermo I. Ventura, owner of the Ventura Drugless Clinic, was charged with violating Manila Municipal Ordinance No. 3000 for operating his clinic without first securing a required mayor’s permit. The trial court convicted him and imposed a fine. On appeal, Ventura argued that his clinic, which treated diseases using drugless methods or physiotherapy, was not among the businesses specifically enumerated in Section 3 of the ordinance, and thus no mayor’s permit was required for its operation. The prosecution established that Ventura was operating his clinic without the permit, sanitary health permit, and municipal license.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the operation of a drugless clinic falls within the scope of businesses, trades, or occupations regulated by Manila Ordinance No. 3000, thereby requiring a mayor’s permit.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on a proper construction of Ordinance No. 3000. While Section 3 enumerates specific businesses, it also includes a catch-all provision: “All other businesses, trades or occupations not mentioned in this Ordinance, except those upon which the City is not empowered to license or to tax.” The Court emphasized that the ordinance’s object, as stated in Section 1, is the proper supervision of businesses to ensure enforcement of laws on sanitation and public welfare. A clinic treating human afflictions inherently involves direct public contact concerning health, making it subject to the city’s regulatory power for public safety. It would be illogical to exempt such a clinic from supervision while regulating listed establishments like beauty parlors or barber shops. The Court also rejected Ventura’s claim for a new trial based on a subsequent BIR ruling classifying him as a “masseur” for occupation tax purposes. This evidence was not in existence at the time of trial and would not alter the result, as the local ordinance requiring a permit was distinct from national tax obligations. Furthermore, any prior local exemption based on payment of a national occupation tax had been repealed by a subsequent ordinance. Therefore, the permit requirement under Ordinance No. 3000 remained valid and applicable to his clinic’s operation.