G.R. No. L-14069 and L-14149; May 30, 1960
UY HA, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, ET AL., respondents. THE CITY OF MANILA, intervenor-appellant.

FACTS

On December 24, 1957, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 3941, approved on January 3, 1958, which prohibited the granting of any license for the installation or operation of “Pinball” machines. The mayor subsequently ordered the confiscation of all such machines operating in violation of the ordinance. Petitioner Uy Ha, who had been operating pinball machines in the city prior to the ordinance, applied for a license for the current year but was refused. He then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin the ordinance’s enforcement, arguing that pinball machines are for amusement, not gambling, making the ordinance invalid and unconstitutional. The respondents countered that the machines are designed for gambling, depend chiefly on chance, and are deleterious to public welfare, especially for young people, justifying prohibition under the city’s police power (Section 18(kk) of Republic Act No. 409). The City of Manila was allowed to intervene, alleging that Uy Ha owed unpaid license fees totaling P4,620.00 for his eight machines under a prior ordinance (Ordinance No. 3628, amending Section 774 of the Revised Ordinance). Uy Ha contested this claim, stating he had paid fees for 1956 and the first half of 1957 and that a tender for the second half of 1957 was refused; he also argued Ordinance No. 3628 was null and void as an ultra vires revenue measure. The trial court ruled that pinball machines are gambling devices subject to the city’s general welfare power and are not “places of amusements” under Republic Act 1224, but it denied the city’s claim for unpaid fees, doubting the validity of the fee increase from P50.00 to P300.00 under the city’s police or taxing powers. Both petitioner and intervenor appealed.

ISSUE

1. Are “pinball machines” gambling devices the operation of which is prohibited by law?
2. Is Ordinance No. 3941 of the City of Manila valid and constitutional?

RULING

1. Yes, pinball machines are gambling devices. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings, adopting its detailed observations. Pinball machines, whether the non-flipper (one-ball) or flipper (five-ball) type, operate such that the result depends mainly on chance or luck, as demonstrated by tests showing low winning percentages even for skilled players. They have been generally held to be gambling devices in various jurisdictions, as they encourage the gambling instinct, lead to idleness, economic waste, and criminality, and are especially detrimental to youngsters and schoolchildren. They are therefore proper subjects for suppression under the general welfare clause and are prohibited and penalized under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Yes, Ordinance No. 3941 is valid and constitutional. The ordinance, which prohibits the licensing of pinball machines, is a valid exercise of the city’s police power under its charter to promote public welfare by suppressing gambling devices. It is not invalid or unconstitutional. The Court clarified that while Section 18(l) of the Revised Charter of Manila (Republic Act No. 409) grants the municipal board power to regulate and license certain devices like slot machines, this refers only to those not per se gambling devices. Since pinball machines are gambling devices prohibited by law, they cannot be subject to regulation or licensing. Consequently, Ordinance No. 3628, which sought to regulate and impose an annual license fee of P300.00 on pinball machines, is ultra vires and invalid. The City of Manila’s claim for unpaid license fees under this ordinance cannot be sustained.
The decision of the trial court was affirmed in its entirety.