CITY 

OF  MANILA  v.  LAGUIO,  

G.R.  No. 118127, April 12, 2005
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_118127_2005.html

FACTS:
The Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) deals in the business of hotels,
motels, lodgings, etc. On March 30, 1993, Manila Mayor Lim enacted an ordinance prohibiting
“amusement, entertainment, services and facilities where women are used as tools in
entertainment and which tend to disturb the community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely
affect the social and moral welfare of the community.” The Ordinance prohibited many
establishments, many of which were owned by MTDC, such as motels, inns, nightclubs,
beerhouses, etc. It gave the owners and operators of the prohibited establishments three months
to cease business operations or transfer to any place outside Ermita-Malate or convert said
businesses to other kinds allowable within the area. Any establishment that violates the
Ordinance are to be closed and padlocked permanently.
MTDC filed a petition praying for the Ordinance to be declared invalid and
unconstitutional. It contends it is not a valid exercise of police power, and violates equal
protection under the law. Judge Laguio ruled in favor of MTDC, and the case was raised to the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
WON the Ordinance is constitutional.
HELD:
NO. The Ordinance is unconstitutional.

The Ordinance lumps legitimate establishments with houses of ill-repute. This causes an
overreach in the prohibitory powers of the City Council, provided by the LGC.
It is important to distinguish the punishable activities from the establishments themselves.
The establishments in question, also have been recognized by the LGC as legitimate. The LGC
also defined "amusement" as a "pleasurable diversion and entertainment," "synonymous to
relaxation, avocation, pastime or fun;" and "amusement places" to include "theaters, cinemas,
concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement where one seeks admission to entertain
oneself by seeing or viewing the show or performances." Therefore, the LGC recognizes these
activities and entertainment as legitimate.
 We must apply reddendo singula singulis which means that words in different parts of a
statute must be referred to their appropriate connection, giving to each in its place, its proper
force and effect, and, if possible, rendering none of them useless or superfluous, even if strict
grammatical construction demands otherwise. Likewise, where words under consideration
appear in different sections or are widely dispersed throughout an act the same principle applies.