Uy Ha v. City Mayor of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 24, 1957, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 3941, prohibiting the issuance of licenses for the installation and operation of "pinball" machines. Subsequently, the mayor ordered the confiscation of all such machines operated in violation of the ordinance. The petitioner, who operated pinball machines prior to the ordinance, was denied a license for the current year and sought to enjoin the ordinance's enforcement, arguing the machines were for amusement, not gambling, and thus the ordinance was invalid. Procedural History: The respondents argued that the pinball machines were designed for gambling, prohibited by law, and detrimental to public welfare, justifying the ordinance under Republic Act No. 409. The City of Manila intervened, claiming the petitioner owed P4,620.00 in unpaid license fees for operating eight pinball machines without a license under Ordinance No. The petitioner countered that he had paid the fees and that Ordinance No. 3628 was an invalid revenue measure. The trial court ruled that pinball machines are gambling devices and subject to the general welfare clause, denying the intervenor's claim for unpaid fees due to doubt regarding the justification of the increased license fee under the city's police power. The Petition: Both the petitioner and the intervenor appealed the trial court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether "pinball machines" are gambling devices whose operation is prohibited by law. Whether Ordinance No. 3941 of the City of Manila is valid and constitutional.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 3941 and denying the intervenor's claim for unpaid license fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether "pinball machines" are gambling devices: The Court, citing various authorities and observations, concluded that pinball machines, in both their non-flipper and flipper types, are gambling devices. The Court noted that the outcome generally depends on chance or hazard, and even if some skill is involved, the general public patronizing them relies on luck. The machines "encourage the gambling instinct," leading to idleness, economic waste, and criminality, especially among children. The Court further stated that these machines are inimical to the general welfare and are proper subjects for suppression under the general welfare clause of the City of Manila's charter. Their operation is prohibited by law and penalized under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code. On the issue of the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 3941: The Court held that Ordinance No. 3941, which prohibits the issuance of licenses for pinball machines, is valid and constitutional. Since pinball machines are gambling devices prohibited by law, they cannot be the subject of regulation or licensing under the provision of Section 18(1) of Act 409, which pertains to the regulation of slot machines not per se gambling devices. The ordinance properly exercises the city's police power under the general welfare clause to suppress devices injurious to public welfare. Therefore, the ordinance is not an invalid exercise of power but a legitimate measure to protect the public, particularly the youth, from the pernicious effects of gambling.
Main Doctrine
Pinball machines, due to their inherent nature and tendency to encourage the gambling instinct, are considered gambling devices and are proper subjects for prohibition under the general welfare clause. Ordinances prohibiting their operation and license grant are valid and constitutional.