KEMBAR78
Kwong Sing V City of Manila | PDF | Local Ordinance | Property
Scribd
Upload
85 views2 pages

Kwong Sing V City of Manila

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 532 enacted by the City of Manila regulating laundries. The ordinance required laundries to provide duplicate receipts in English and Spanish for clothes delivered to be washed. The petitioner argued the ordinance was invalid, but the Court found the City of Manila had authority under its charter and administrative code to regulate businesses in the interest of public welfare. The Court also found the ordinance's purpose was to prevent disputes and fraud, did not violate personal rights, and applied equally to all laundries without discrimination. The petition for an injunction against enforcing the ordinance was denied.

Uploaded by

Valerie Aileen Ancero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views2 pages

Kwong Sing V City of Manila

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 532 enacted by the City of Manila regulating laundries. The ordinance required laundries to provide duplicate receipts in English and Spanish for clothes delivered to be washed. The petitioner argued the ordinance was invalid, but the Court found the City of Manila had authority under its charter and administrative code to regulate businesses in the interest of public welfare. The Court also found the ordinance's purpose was to prevent disputes and fraud, did not violate personal rights, and applied equally to all laundries without discrimination. The petition for an injunction against enforcing the ordinance was denied.

Uploaded by

Valerie Aileen Ancero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

KWONG SING v CITY OF MANILA

FACTS:

 City of Manila created Ordinance No. 532 regulating the delivery and return of clothes or cloths
delivered to be washed in laundries, dyeing and cleaning establishments.
o It required receipts in duplicate, in English and Spanish, duly signed, showing the kind
and number of articles delivered and the duplicate copy of the receipt shall be kept by
the owner of the establishment or person issuing it.
 The lower court, after trial, denied the permanent injunction against the City of Manila.
 Petitioner appealed to SC contending that Ordinance No. 532 is invalid

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 The ordinance is invalid, because it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not justified under the police
power of the city.

RULING:

 The City of Manila possesses the power to enact Ordinance No. 532.
o Sec. 2444, par. (l) and (ee) of the Admin Code, as amended by Act. No. 2774, sec. 8,
authorizes the municipal board of the City of MNL, with the approval of the mayor of
the city.
o The word "regulate", as used in subsection (l), section 2444 of the Administrative Code,
means and includes the power to control, to govern, and to restrain; but "regulate"
should not be construed as synonymous with "suppress" or "prohibit."
 Under the power to regulate laundries, the municipal authorities could make proper police
regulations as to the mode in which the employment or business shall be exercised.
 And, under the general welfare clause (subsection [ee], section 2444 of the Manila Charter),the
business of laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments could be regulated, as this term is
above construed, by an ordinance in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, peace,
good order, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare.
 Ordinance No. 532 was enacted to avoid disputes between laundrymen and their patrons and to
protect customers of laundries who are not able to decipher Chinese characters from being
defrauded.
 The object of the ordinance was, accordingly, the promotion of peace and good order and the
prevention of fraud, deceit, cheating, and imposition.
 The ordinance invades no fundamental right, and impairs no personal privilege.
 Under the guise of police regulation, an attempt is not made to violate personal or property
rights.
 The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation It applies to all public
laundries without distinction, whether they belong to Americans, Filipinos, Chinese, or any other
nationality.
 Equally and uniformly the ordinance applies to all engaged in the laundry business, and, as
nearly as may be, the same burdens are cast upon them.
 Even if private rights of person or property are subjected to restraint, and even if loss will result
to individuals from the enforcement of the ordinance, this is not sufficient ground for failing to
uphold the hands of the legislative body.
 The government of the city of Manila had the power to enact Ordinance No. 532 and that as
said ordinance is found not to be oppressive, nor unequal, nor unjust, it is valid.
 Judgment is affirmed and the petition for a preliminary injunction is denied.

You might also like