10/12/2020 Balacuit v CFI G.R. No.

L-38429 June 30, 1988

The Digester
The Travails and Triumphs of a Law Student Dealing In Business, Digest Writing, History, and Culture

Home Contact me About me All digests Constitutional Law digests Insurance digests Persons digests Criminal Law d

Certified Bloggers

Translate
Balacuit V CFI ‫ ﺷرﻛﺔ‬CFI CFI Dubai

Select Language

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Powered by Translate

Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988

J. Gancayo

Facts:
Petitioners, theater owners, assailed the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of
Butuan on April 21, 1969. This called for a reduction to ½ of the ticket price given to minors from 7-12 years old. There was a
fine from 200-600 pesos or a 2-6 month imprisonment
The complaint was issued in the trial court. A TRO was then issued to prevent the law from being enforced. The respondent
court entered its decision declaring the law valid.
Petitioners attack the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on the grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid
exercise of police power. Petitioners contend that Ordinance No. 640 is not within the power of' the Municipal Board to enact
as provided for in Section 15(n) of Republic Act No. 523 where it states that the Muncipal board can only fix license fees for
theaters and not admission rates.
The respondent attempts to justify the enactment of the ordinance by invoking the general welfare clause embodied in
Section 15 (nn) of the cited law.

Issue:
Does this power to regulate include the authority to interfere in the fixing of prices of admission to these places of exhibition
and amusement whether under its general grant of power or under the general welfare clause as invoked by the City?

Held: The ordinance is under neither and thus unconstitutional. Petition granted.

Ratio:
1. Kwong Sing v. City of Manila- the word "regulate" was interpreted to include the power to control, to govern and to restrain,
it would seem that under its power to regulate places of exhibitions and amusement, the Municipal Board of the City of
Butuan could make proper police regulations as to the mode in which the business shall be exercised.
In this jurisdiction, it is already settled that the operation of theaters, cinematographs and other places of public exhibition are
subject to regulation by the municipal council in the exercise of delegated police power by the local government.
People v. Chan- an ordinance of the City of Manila prohibiting first run cinematographs from selling tickets beyond their
seating capacity was upheld as constitutional for being a valid exercise of police power.
The City of Butuan, apparently realizing that it has no authority to enact the ordinance in question under its power to regulate
embodied in Section 15(n), now invokes the police power as delegated to it under the general welfare clause to justify the
enactment of said ordinance
To invoke the exercise of police power, not only must it appear that the interest of the public generally requires an
interference with private rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose
unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, the determination as to what is a proper
exercise of its police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.
Petitioners maintain that Ordinance No. 640 violates the due process clause of the Constitution for being oppressive, unfair,
unjust, confiscatory, and an undue restraint of trade, and violative of the right of persons to enter into contracts, considering
that the theater owners are bound under a contract with the film owners for just admission prices for general admission,
balcony and lodge.
Homeowners Association- the exercise of police power is necessarily subject to a qualification, limitation or restriction
demanded by the regard, the respect and the obedience due to the prescriptions of the fundamental law
The court agreed with petitioners that the ordinance is not justified by any necessity for the public interest. The police power
legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes
and means.
The evident purpose of the ordinance is to help ease the burden of cost on the part of parents who have to shell out the same
amount of money for the admission of their children, as they would for themselves. A reduction in the price of admission
would mean corresponding savings for the parents; however, the petitioners are the ones made to bear the cost of these
savings. The ordinance does not only make the petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but it likewise penalizes them for failure

thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/03/balacuit-v-cfi-gr-no-l-38429-june-30.html 1/6
10/12/2020 Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988
to comply with it. Furthermore, as petitioners point out, there will be difficulty in its implementation because as already
experienced by petitioners since the effectivity of the ordinance, children over 12 years of age tried to pass off their age as
below 12 years in order to avail of the benefit of the ordinance. The ordinance does not provide a safeguard against this
undesirable practice and as such, the respondent City of Butuan now suggests that birth certificates be exhibited by movie
house patrons to prove the age of children. This is, however, not at all practicable. We can see that the ordinance is clearly
unreasonable if not unduly oppressive upon the business of petitioners. Moreover, there is no discernible relation between
the ordinance and the promotion of public health, safety, morals and the general welfare.
Respondent further alleges that by charging the full price, the children are being exploited by movie house operators. We fail
to see how the children are exploited if they pay the full price of admission. They are treated with the same quality of
entertainment as the adults.
Moreover, as a logical consequence of the ordinance, movie house and theater operators will be discouraged from exhibiting
wholesome movies for general patronage, much less children's pictures if only to avoid compliance with the ordinance and
still earn profits for themselves.
A theater ticket has been described to be either a mere license, revocable at the will of the proprietor of the theater or it may
be evidence of a contract whereby, for a valuable consideration, the purchaser has acquired the right to enter the theater and
observe the performance on condition that he behaves properly. Such ticket, therefore, represents a right, Positive or
conditional, as the case may be, according to the terms of the original contract of sale. This right is clearly a right of property.
The ticket which represents that right is also, necessarily, a species of property. As such, the owner thereof, in the absence of
any condition to the contrary in the contract by which he obtained it, has the clear right to dispose of it, to sell it to whom
he pleases and at such price as he can obtain.
In no sense could theaters be considered public utilities. The State has not found it appropriate as a national policy to
interfere with the admission prices to these performances. This does not mean however, that theaters and exhibitions are not
affected with public interest even to a certain degree. Motion pictures have been considered important both as a medium for
the communication of Ideas and expression of the artistic impulse. Their effects on the perceptions by our people of issues
and public officials or public figures as well as the prevailing cultural traits are considerable.
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.
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.
Although the presumption is always in favor of the validity or reasonableness of the ordinance, such presumption must
nevertheless be set aside when the invalidity or unreasonableness appears on the face of the ordinance itself or is
established by proper evidence

Posted by Unknown at 6:16 AM 0 Comments

Labels: Amusement, Balacuit v CFI, Constitutional Law

Boards Filipino Free sms text messages Translation Spanish Translation

Widget discontinued. Please remov
from your blog.

Follow this blog

My QR Code!

Blog Archive

► 2017 (60)
► 2016 (40)
► 2015 (63)
► 2013 (5)

thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/03/balacuit-v-cfi-gr-no-l-38429-june-30.html 2/6
10/12/2020 Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988
▼ 2012 (129)
ALSO ON THE DIGESTER
► July (71)
Important Update ► June (3)
► April (20)
When you
Kabayan log in with Disqus,
Hotel's ATC we process
FATOUT: personal data
Cheers to facilitate
LiverMarin your authentication
Dietary and
Food Review: My
posting of comments. Wetoalso store the comments you post and those comments are ▼ March (25)
Kapsule Rooms: a … Colon Cleansing Supplement to … adventure in Burge
immediately viewable and searchable by anyone around the world. MMDA v Viron Transport G.R.
3 years ago • 1 comment 5 years ago • 1 comment 5 years ago • 1 comment
No. 170656 August 15,...
Please access our Privacy Policy to learn what personal data Disqus collects and5 years
your ago • 1 comment
choices about how
The Digester is a student- it is used. All users of our service
The Digester is a student- are also subject to our
The Digester is a student- Terms
TheofDigester is a stude NDC v Agrix G.R. Nos. 84132-
Service. 33 December 10, 1990
made blog that deals in made blog that deals in made blog that deals in made blog that deals in
publishing case digests … publishing case digests … publishing case digests … publishing case digests ACCFA v CUGCO G.R. No. L-
21484. November 29, 1969.
Proceed
Biflex v Fiflex G.R. No. 155679
December 19, 2006
0 Comments The Digester 🔒 Disqus' Privacy Policy  Inday Badiday
German v Barangan G.R. No.
L-68828 March 27, 1985
 Recommend t Tweet f Share Sort by Best
De Leon v NLU G.R. No. L-
7586 January 30, 1957
⚠ The Digester requires you to verify your email address before posting. Send verification email to × De Knecht v CA [G.R. No.
koleheyala_gurl07@live.com 109234. May 20, 1998]
NAPOCOR v Henson G.R. No.
129998. December 29, 1998
Start the discussion… Ermita Malate v City of Manila
20 SCRA 849 (1967)
Radio Communications v NTC
G.R. No. L-68729 May ...
Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-
Be the first to comment. 38429 June 30, 1988
Eastern Broadcasting v Dans
G.R. No. L-59329 July...
✉ Subscribe d Add Disqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd ⚠ Do Not Sell My Data U.S. v Bustos G.R. No. L-
12592 March 8, 1918
American Tobacco v Director of
Patents G.R. No. L...
Newer Post Home Older Post Dizon v Eduardo G.R. No. L-
59118 March 3, 1988
SJS V Atienza G.R. No.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
156052 March 7, 2007
Carino v Insular Government
G.R. No. 2869 (1907)
Pita V CA G.R. No. 80806
October 5, 1989
People v Padan G.R. No. L-
7295 June 28, 1957
ISAE v Quisimbing G.R. No.
128845. June 1, 2000
Gonzales v Katigbak G.R. No.
L-69500 July 22...
Tiu v Ca G.R. No. 127410.
January 20, 1999
Sombong v CA G.R. No.
111876. January 31, 1996
Ebralinag v Cebu G.R. No.
95770 March 1, 1993
Libres v NLRC G.R. No.
123737. May 28, 1999

► February (10)

► 2011 (18)
► 2010 (1)

Categories

Law (73)

digests (73)

Insurance (72)

Constitutional Law (48)

thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/03/balacuit-v-cfi-gr-no-l-38429-june-30.html 3/6
10/12/2020 Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988

persons (12)

Marketing (8)

statutory construction (7)

Quezon City (4)

freedom of expression (4)

freedom of religion (3)

Criminal Law (2)

Criminal Procedure (2)

Lots (2)

procedural due process (2)

Housing (1)

http://the-importer.blogspot.com/ (1)

My Friends' Blogs

The Importer

Philippine Case Digests

Uber Digests

Coffee Afficionado's Legal Materials

Blog links exchange

Search This Blog

Se

More Legal Materials

Chan Robles

Court of Appeals of the Philippines

Lawphil

Scribd

Supreme Court of the Philippines

UST Law Review

Followers

Followers (0)

Follow

Subscribe To

Posts

Comments

thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/03/balacuit-v-cfi-gr-no-l-38429-june-30.html 4/6
10/12/2020 Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988

Follow by Email

Email address... Su

Cbox closed
This Cbox is no longer
available.

Cbox.ws is an embedded live

chat web app.

Total Pageviews

736,152

Filipino Link Exchange

Disclaimer

The blog posts shouldn't be used as ano

blog's original entries or be reposted wit
the author's express consent.
The pictures should also not be used wit
permission from the author.

free coun

Legal - Top
Blogs Philippines

thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/03/balacuit-v-cfi-gr-no-l-38429-june-30.html 5/6
10/12/2020 Balacuit v CFI G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988

Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.

thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/03/balacuit-v-cfi-gr-no-l-38429-june-30.html 6/6