Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24153 February 14, 1983
TOMS !ELSCO, LOUR"ES RM#RE$, S% P#N,
E"MUN"O UNSON, POLON# RM#RE$ a&' LOUR"ES
LOM#(O, a) *o+,o&e&- +e+ber) o. -/e ST. CRU$
(R(ERS0OP SSOC#T#ON, 1& -/e1r o2& be/a3. a&'
1& re,re)e&-a-1o& o. -/e o-/er o2&er) o. barber)/o,)
1& -/e C1-y o. Ma&13a, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
0ON. NTON#O 4. !#LLEGS, C1-y Mayor o. Ma&13a,
0ON. 0ERM#N#O . STORG, !1*e-Mayor a&'
Pre)1'1&5 O6*er o. -/e Mu&1*1,a3 (oar' 1& re3a-1o& -o
Re,ub31* *- 4785, T0E MUN#C#PL (OR" OF T0E
C#T% OF MN#L a&' E"UR"O 9U#NTOS SR., C/1e. o.
Po31*e o. -/e C1-y o. Ma&13a, respondents-appellees.
Leonardo L. Arguelles for respondent-appellant.

FERNN"O, C.J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the loer court dismissin!
a suit for declarator" relief challen!in! the constitutionalit"
based on #rdinance No. $%&$ of the Cit" of Manila, the
contention bein! that it amounts to a deprivation of
propert" of petitioners-appellants of their means of
livelihood ithout due process of la. The assailed
ordinance is orded thus' ()t shall be prohibited for an"
operator of an" barber shop to conduct the business of
massa!in! customers or other persons in an" ad*acent room
or rooms of said barber shop, or in an" room or rooms ithin
the same buildin! here the barber shop is located as lon!
as the operator of the barber shop and the room here
massa!in! is conducted is the same person.(
1
As noted in
the appealed order, petitioners-appellants admitted that
criminal cases for the violation of this ordinance had been
previousl" +led and decided. The loer court, therefore,
held that a petition for declarator" relief did not lie, its
availabilit" bein! dependent on there bein! as "et no case
involvin! such issue havin! been +led.
2
Even if such ere not the case, the attac, a!ainst the
validit" cannot succeed. As pointed out in the brief of
respondents-appellees, it is a police poer measure. The
ob*ectives behind its enactment are' (-./ To be able to
impose pa"ment of the license fee for en!a!in! in the
business of massa!e clinic under #rdinance No. 0&1% as
amended b" #rdinance $2&2, an entirel" di3erent measure
than the ordinance re!ulatin! the business of barbershops
and, -4/ in order to forestall possible immoralit" hich mi!ht
!ro out of the construction of separate rooms for massa!e
of customers.(
3
This Court has been most liberal in
sustainin! ordinances based on the !eneral elfare clause.
As far bac, as U.S. v. Salaveria,
4
a .%.5 decision, this Court
throu!h 6ustice Malcolm made clear the si!ni+cance and
scope of such a clause, hich (dele!ates in statutor" form
the police poer to a municipalit". As above stated, this
clause has been !iven ide application b" municipal
authorities and has in its relation to the particular
circumstances of the case been liberall" construed b" the
courts. 7uch, it is ell to reall" is the pro!ressive vie of
Philippine *urisprudence.(
5
As it as then, so it has
continued to be.
8
There is no shoin!, therefore, of the
unconstitutionalit" of such ordinance.
89ERE:#RE, the appealed order of the loer court is
a;rmed. No costs.
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro,
Melencio- errera, !lana, "scolin, #as$ue%, &elova and
Gutierre%, Jr., JJ., concur.
'ee(ankee, J., reserves (is vote.
A$uino J., took no part.