Miranda v. City of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs, Gorgonio Miranda and others, filed separate complaints seeking to invalidate Manila City Ordinances No. 3628 and No. 3941. Ordinance No. 3628 prohibited the operation of pinball machines within a 200-meter radius of specific public places and imposed an annual fee, while Ordinance No. 3941 completely banned the granting of licenses for pinball machine operations. The plaintiffs aimed to prevent the City of Manila from enforcing these ordinances against their pinball businesses. Procedural History: The cases were consolidated for a joint hearing in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where the parties submitted a stipulation of facts. The trial court rendered a decision on February 12, 1959, declaring both ordinances null and void and permanently enjoining the City of Manila from enforcing them. The defendant, City of Manila, appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals, by resolution on July 25, 1960, certified the cases to the Supreme Court due to the involvement of the validity of Ordinance No. 3941. The Petition: The Supreme Court is tasked with determining the validity of Ordinances Nos. 3628 and 3941, and whether the pinball machines operated by the appellees are gambling devices. The Court's review is based on the appeal from the Court of Appeals' certification. The core of the petition revolves around the classification of pinball machines as gambling devices and the City of Manila's authority under its general welfare clause to prohibit their operation, as enacted through Ordinance No. 3941.
Issue(s)
Whether pinball machines are considered gambling devices under Philippine law. Whether Ordinance No. 3941 (prohibiting licensing) and Ordinance No. 3628 (regulating and licensing) are valid exercises of municipal power.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance is reversed. The Supreme Court declared Ordinances Nos. 3628 and 3941 valid and constitutional, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaints. The counterclaim of the defendants was also dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that pinball machines are gambling devices because winning depends mostly, if not wholly, upon chance or hazard. Applying the precedent in Uy Ha vs. The City Mayor, the Court observed that the element of skill in both 'one-ball' and 'flipper' type machines is negligible or nil. Ocular inspections revealed that the results of play depend mainly on luck, as players often lose money with minimal or no replay rewards. The Court emphasized that the proper test to determine if a machine is a gambling device is whether it encourages the 'gambling instinct,' which leads to idleness, economic waste, and criminality, particularly among school-aged children. Consequently, because these machines are designed for gambling, they are prohibited and penalized under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). On Issue 2: Ordinance No. 3941 is valid as it falls squarely under the General Welfare Clause of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila (Act No. 409). Since pinball machines are gambling devices inimical to public welfare, the City has the police power to suppress them by refusing to grant licenses for their operation. However, Ordinance No. 3628 is ultra vires because it attempts to regulate and license an activity that is already prohibited by national law. The Court reasoned that Section 18(l) of Act No. 409, which allows the board to regulate slot machines, applies only to those not per se gambling devices. A municipality cannot derive revenue or grant legitimacy to a prohibited act; therefore, the attempt to collect license fees for gambling devices is an exercise of power not granted by law.
Main Doctrine
Pinball machines, regardless of type (non-flipper or flipper), are considered gambling devices because their operation depends wholly on chance or hazard, are inimical to public welfare by encouraging gambling instincts, and thus, ordinances prohibiting their operation and license are valid under the general welfare clause.