Physical Therapy Organization of the Philippines vs.

Municipal Board of
Manila
G.R. No. L-10448, Aug. 30, 1957
Doctrine: Where public power is used to discourage non-useful occupations or
enterprises, an annual permit/license fee of P100.00, although a bit exorbitant, is
valid.
FACTS:
Physical Therapy Organization, an association of registered massagists and
licensed operators of massage clinics in the country, filed an action in the CFI
regarding the validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 3659, promulgated by the
Municipal Board on the ground that the permit fee of P100.00 is unreasonable.
The CFI dismissed the petition.
Art. 2 of Ordinance No. 3659 states: No person shall engage in the operation of a
massage clinic without first having obtained a permit therefore from the Mayor.
For every permit granted, there shall be paid to the City Treasurer an annual fee
of P100.00 to be paid by the operators of a massage clinic.
ISSUE:
Is the imposition of an annual permit fee by the Manila Municipal Board valid?
RULING:
Yes. The fee is made payable not by the massagist, but by the operator of a
massage clinic who may not be a massage himself. Compared to permit fees
required in other operations, P100.00 may appear to be too large and rather
unreasonable. However, much discretion is given to municipal corporations in
determining the amount of said fee.
There is a marked distinction between license fees imposed upon useful and
beneficial occupations which the sovereign wishes to regulate but not restrict,
and those which are inimical and dangerous to public health, morals or safety. In
the latter case, the fee may be very large without necessarily being a tax.
Evidently, the Manila Municipal Board considered the practice of hygienic and
aesthetic massage not as a useful and beneficial occupation which will promote
and is conducive to public morals, and consequently, imposed the said permit fee
for its regulation.