GR L 17252; (May, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-17252 and L-17276; May 31, 1961
GORGONIO MIRANDA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. CITY OF MANILA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiffs, operators of pinball machines, filed separate complaints seeking to invalidate two City of Manila ordinances and to enjoin their enforcement. Ordinance No. 3628 prohibited the operation of pinball machines within a 200-meter radius from specified public places and fixed an annual license fee. Ordinance No. 3941 went further by providing that no license for the operation of pinball machines shall be granted under any circumstances. The Court of First Instance of Manila, after a joint hearing, declared both ordinances null and void and permanently enjoined the city from enforcing them against the plaintiffs’ pinball business. The defendant City of Manila appealed the decision.
ISSUE
The primary issues for the Supreme Court’s determination were: (1) the validity of Ordinances Nos. 3628 and 3941 as they affect the operation of pinball machines; and (2) whether pinball machines are operated for gambling purposes.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 3941 and dismissing the cases. The Court anchored its ruling on its recent precedent in Uy Ha vs. The City Mayor, which had already resolved the identical legal questions. The Court adopted the reasoning that pinball machines, in their various forms of operation, constitute gambling devices because winning depends predominantly on chance or hazard, not skill. This conclusion was supported by factual observations and judicial precedents from other jurisdictions, which characterized such machines as encouraging the gambling instinct. Consequently, the municipal board of Manila acted within its police power under the general welfare clause of its charter in enacting Ordinance No. 3941, which aimed at the absolute suppression, not mere regulation, of these gambling devices. The ordinance was therefore declared a valid and constitutional exercise of municipal authority intended to curb a systematic gambling business that posed a continuous public temptation. The Court found no merit in the challenge to the ordinance’s validity.