G.R. No. L-28745, October 23, 1974
Elisa Samson and Angel Gavilan, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. The Honorable City Mayor of Bacolod City and The Honorable City Council of Bacolod City, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellees, operators of movie theaters in Bacolod City, filed a complaint to nullify Ordinance No. 1074, an amendatory ordinance which made it unlawful for amusement place operators to admit two or more persons with only one admission ticket. They alleged the ordinance was ultra vires and violated the due process clause of the Constitution, as it deprived them of property rights by limiting their freedom to manage their theaters. The lower court granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance’s enforcement. The defendants-appellants, represented by the City Fiscal, filed an answer contesting the complaint and invoking the municipality’s police power, though they did not specifically cite the recent Ermita-Malate Hotel decision from the Supreme Court.
The lower court, deciding the case based on the parties’ memoranda without receiving evidence, ruled that the ordinance was not ultra vires. However, it declared the ordinance null and void for contravening the due process clause, characterizing it as an unwarranted interference with business management under the guise of police power. The City of Bacolod appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in declaring Ordinance No. 1074 null and void for violating constitutional due process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The ruling was grounded on two fundamental legal principles disregarded by the trial court. First, on procedure, there is a strong presumption of validity favoring a challenged statute or ordinance. The burden of proving invalidity rests on the party assailing it. The lower court erred by deciding the case solely on memoranda without requiring the plaintiffs-appellees to present evidence to rebut this presumption. This procedural requirement, established in United States v. Salaveria and reiterated in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor, was not observed.
Second, on the substantive merits, the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. The lower court incorrectly sustained the claim that the regulation constituted a deprivation of property without due process merely because it interfered with the appellees’ business management. As held in Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Municipal Board of Ormoc City, an allegation of undue interference with property rights, without more, is insufficient to invalidate a police power measure. The City Charter of Bacolod expressly grants the city council the authority to enact ordinances for the safety, health, and general welfare of its inhabitants, including the regulation of theaters and places of amusement. The ordinance, aimed at preventing fraud and ensuring public order and safety in amusement places, falls squarely within this delegated police power. Therefore, the ordinance is constitutional.