Scribd
Upload
169 views2 pages

Velasco vs. Villegas Case Summary

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 4964 in court, arguing that it deprived them of their property and livelihood without due process. The ordinance prohibited operating a barbershop and massage room in the same building. The court upheld the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power, finding its objectives were to impose license fees for massage clinics and prevent possible immorality from massaging customers in a separate room. The court determined the ordinance did not violate petitioners' rights or deprive them of due process.

Uploaded by

April Joy Fano Boreres
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
169 views2 pages

Velasco vs. Villegas Case Summary

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 4964 in court, arguing that it deprived them of their property and livelihood without due process. The ordinance prohibited operating a barbershop and massage room in the same building. The court upheld the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power, finding its objectives were to impose license fees for massage clinics and prevent possible immorality from massaging customers in a separate room. The court determined the ordinance did not violate petitioners' rights or deprive them of due process.

Uploaded by

April Joy Fano Boreres
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

Velasco vs. Villegas [G.R. No.

L-24153 (120 SCRA),


February 14, 1983]
Post under case digests, Political Law at Sunday, February 26, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: Petitioners herein are members of the Sta. Cruz


Barbershop Association. This is an appeal from the lower
court's(LC) order dismissing their suit for declatory relief.
They are challenging the constitutionality of Ord. No.
4964. They contend that it amounts todeprivation of
properties and their means of livelihood without due
process of law.
The assailed ordinance is worded thus: "It shall be
prohibited
for
any
operator
of
any barber
shop to conduct the business of massaging customers or
other persons in any adjacent room or rooms of
saidbarber shop, or in any room or rooms within the same
building where the barber shop is located as long as the
operator of thebarber shop and the room where
massaging is conducted is the same person."
Respondent in its reply, said that the Ordinance No. 4964
is constitutional and such is just an exercise of the state's
inherent power (police power).
Issue: Whether or not the assailed Ordinance violated the
petitioner's right to property and their means of livelihood.
Held: Ordinance is Constitutional. Petition is dismissed,
LC decision affirmed.

Enactment of such (Ordinance) is a valid exercise of


Police Power.
The objectives of the Ordinance are:
(1) To impose payment of license fees for engaging in the
business of massage clinics, and;
(2) To forestall possible immorality which might grow from
the construction of a separate room for massaging
customers.
This
Court
has
been
most
liberal
in
sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare
clause. And for that reason, the petitioners rights were not
violated and they are not deprived of the due process of
law.

You might also like