CARLOS BALACUIT ET.AL V. CFI OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Kenzo
CARLOS BALACUIT ET.AL V. CFI OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE                   G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988
FACTS:
the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan pass an ordinance penalizing any person, group of persons, entity, or corporation engaged in the business of selling admission tickets to any movie or other public exhibitions, games, contests, or other performances to require children between seven (7) and twelve (12) years of age to pay full payment for admission tickets intended for adults but should charge only one-half of the value of the said tickets.
The Petitioners, theater owners, aggrieved by said ordinance, they file a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City assailing the constitutionalit of Ordinance No. 640.
The Court rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 640 of the City of Butuan constitutional and valid.
ISSUE:
WON Ordinance No. 640 is a valid exercise of police power
HELD:
YES. Ordinance No. 640 infringes theater ownersright to property.
While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that such regulation must be within the bounds of reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the business or calling subject of regulation. A lawful business or calling may not, under the guise of regulation, be unreasonably interfered with even by the exercise of police power.33 A police measure for the regulation of the conduct, control and operation of a business should not encroach upon the legitimate and lawful exercise by the citizens of their property rights.34 The right of the owner to fix a price at which his property shall be sold or used is an inherent attribute of the property itself and, as such, within the protection of the due process clause."" Hence, the proprietors of a theater have a right to manage their property in their own way, to fix what prices of admission they think most for their own advantage, and that any person who did not approve could stay away.
Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades the personal and property rights of petitioners for even if We could assume that, on its face, the interference was reasonable, from the foregoing considerations, it has been fully shown that it is an unwarranted and unlawful curtailment of the property and personal rights of citizens. For being unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade, it cannot, under the guise of exercising police power, be upheld as valid.
Wherefore, the decision of the trial court in Special Civil Case No. 237 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered declaring Ordinance No. 640 unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. 

Post a Comment

Cookie Consent
We serve cookies on this site to analyze traffic, remember your preferences, and optimize your experience.
Oops!
It seems there is something wrong with your internet connection. Please connect to the internet and start browsing again.
AdBlock Detected!
We have detected that you are using adblocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we earn by the advertisements is used to manage this website, we request you to whitelist our website in your adblocking plugin.
Site is Blocked
Sorry! This site is not available in your country.