KWONG SING v CITY OF MANILA

41 Phil 103
MALCOLM, J.
FACTS:
Ordinance 532
- Requires receipts in duplicate in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind and number of
articles delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments.
- Was enacted, it is said, 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.

Kwong Sing
- A Chinese laundryman
- In behalf of the other Chinese laundryman, assailed the Ordinance 532
- Claim is that Ordinance No. 532 savors of class legislation; that it unjustly discriminates between
persons in similar circumstances; and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property
rights.
- For the reason of it being arbitrary, unreasonable, and not justified under the police power of the
city

In view of the foregoing, this is an appeal with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Is Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no, 532 is an act beyond the scope of police power

DOCTRINE: Due Process

RULING:
Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the police power. The police
power of the City of Manila to enact Ordinance No. 532 is based on Section 2444, paragraphs (l) and (ee) of
the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 2744, authorizes the municipal board of the city of Manila,
with the approval of the mayor of the city:

(I) To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for the laundry stations.
(II) (ee) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the
furtherance of the prosperity, and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort,
convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.

The court held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No. 532 was 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. (Considering that in the year 1920s, people of Manila are more familiar with Spanish and maybe
English.)
In whether the ordinance is class legislation, the court held that 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 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. All, without exception, and each every one of them without distinction, must comply with the
ordinance. The obvious objection for the implementation of the ordinance is based in Sec2444 (ee) of the
Administrative Code. Although, an additional burden will be imposed on the business and occupation affected
by the ordinance such as that of the appellant by learning even a few words in Spanish or English, but mostly
Arabic numbers in order to properly issue a receipt, it seems that the same burdens are cast upon the them. Yet,
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 power of the
legislative body. The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the public
welfare.