Municipal ordinances enacted under the general welfare clause and the specific power to regulate businesses, requiring reasonable measures like issuing detailed receipts in official languages to prevent fraud and disputes and protect the public, constitute a valid exercise of police power, even if they impose some burden on business owners, provided they are not discriminatory, arbitrary, or unduly oppressive.

The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 532, which mandated that all laundries, dyeing, and cleaning establishments issue signed duplicate receipts in English and Spanish, specifying the kind and number of articles received for service, aiming to regulate the delivery and return of clothes and prevent disputes and fraud, particularly targeting issues arising from receipts issued in Chinese characters.

• The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 532, requiring every person, firm, or corporation engaged in laundering, dyeing, or cleaning clothes for compensation to issue a duplicate receipt in English and Spanish, signed, showing the kind and number of articles delivered.
• The ordinance provided a standard form for the receipt and allowed for stating only the total number of articles if classifying them would take too much time, with the customer's consent.
• Violation of the ordinance was punishable by a fine not exceeding twenty pesos.
• Kwong Sing, representing himself and other Chinese laundry owners (comprising over forty establishments in Manila), challenged the ordinance.
• Most laundrymen and employees in Chinese laundries did not speak, read, or write English or Spanish, although some could read and write numbers.
• The stated purpose of the ordinance was to avoid disputes between laundry owners and patrons and to protect customers, particularly those unable to read Chinese characters, from potential fraud, deceit, cheating, and imposition.

• Ordinance No. 532 is invalid because it constitutes class legislation, unjustly discriminating between persons in similar circumstances.
• The ordinance represents an arbitrary infringement of property rights and invades fundamental rights.
• The ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable, unduly oppressive upon individuals, and not justified under the city's police power.
• Compliance with the ordinance is difficult and burdensome for Chinese laundrymen who lack proficiency in English and Spanish.

• The City of Manila possesses the power to enact Ordinance No. 532 under Section 2444, paragraphs (l) (power to regulate laundries) and (ee) (general welfare clause) of the Administrative Code (Manila Charter).
• The ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power aimed at promoting peace, good order, preventing fraud, protecting customers, and ensuring public convenience in a multilingual community.
• The ordinance is reasonable and necessary to achieve its intended purpose.
• The ordinance is not discriminatory as it applies equally and uniformly to all laundries in the city, regardless of the owner's nationality.
• Any burden imposed by the ordinance is a necessary consequence of regulating private interests for the public welfare and is not unduly oppressive.

• Does the City of Manila have the authority to enact Ordinance No. 532?
• Is Ordinance No. 532, requiring laundries to issue receipts in English and Spanish, a valid exercise of police power?
• Is the ordinance invalid because it is allegedly discriminatory, unreasonable, arbitrary, or unduly oppressive, particularly towards Chinese laundry owners?

• The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 532 and denying the petition for injunction.
• The Court held that the City of Manila had the authority to enact the ordinance under its charter provisions granting the power to regulate laundries (Section 2444(l)) and the power to enact ordinances for the general welfare (Section 2444(ee)).
• The ordinance was deemed a reasonable exercise of police power, justified by its objectives: promoting peace and good order, preventing fraud and disputes between laundries and customers, and serving public convenience by requiring receipts in the official languages.
• The Court found the ordinance was neither discriminatory nor class legislation, as it applied uniformly to all laundries within the city, irrespective of the nationality of the owners (American, Filipino, Chinese, etc.).
• While acknowledging the ordinance imposed an additional burden, the Court concluded it was not unduly oppressive, stating that private rights may be subjected to reasonable restraints for the public welfare, and the difficulty of compliance for non-English/Spanish speakers did not invalidate the ordinance.
• The Court emphasized the presumption of validity for municipal ordinances and deferred to the legislative judgment regarding the necessity and adequacy of the means adopted to achieve the regulatory purpose.

• Police Power: The inherent power of the state, delegated to municipalities, to enact regulations promoting public health, safety, morals, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare. The Court affirmed that regulating laundries to prevent fraud and disputes falls within this power, justifying Ordinance No. 532.
• General Welfare Clause (Section 2444(ee), Manila Charter): A statutory grant of power enabling municipalities to enact ordinances deemed necessary and proper for the sanitation, safety, prosperity, morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants. The Court relied on this clause, alongside the specific power to regulate laundries, as the basis for the City's authority to enact the ordinance.
• Regulation vs. Prohibition: The power to "regulate" includes control, governance, and restraint but does not equate to suppression or prohibition. The Court held that requiring receipts was a permissible regulation of the laundry business, not a prohibition.
• Reasonableness of Ordinances: An ordinance must be reasonable, meaning the interference with private rights must be justified by public interest, and the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the purpose and not unduly oppressive. The Court found Ordinance No. 532 met this standard.
• Presumption of Validity: Legislative enactments, including municipal ordinances, are presumed to be valid and enacted with rational regard for individual and community rights. The burden is on the challenger to prove invalidity. The Court applied this presumption in favor of Ordinance No. 532.
• Equal Protection: Constitutional guarantee that laws operate equally on all persons under like circumstances. The petitioner claimed discrimination, but the Court found the ordinance applied uniformly to all laundries, thus not violating equal protection.
• Due Process: Constitutional guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property. The petitioner claimed infringement of property rights, but the Court held the ordinance did not violate due process as it was a reasonable regulation under police power.

• "The object of the ordinance was, accordingly, the promotion of peace and good order and the prevention of fraud, deceit, cheating, and imposition."
• "Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the police power."
• "The legislative body is the best judge of whether or not the means adopted are adequate to accomplish the ends in view."
• "The life, liberty, or property of these persons cannot be taken without due process of law; they are entitled to the equal protection of the laws without regard to their race..."
• "Not only must it appear that the interest of the public generally require an interference with private rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals."
• "The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation. It applies to all public laundries without distinction, whether they belong to Americans, Filipinos, Chinese, or any other nationality."
• "The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the public welfare."

• Yick Wo vs. Hopkins (118 U.S. 356 [1886]): Referenced as the leading US Supreme Court case nullifying a San Francisco laundry ordinance. Distinguished because, unlike in Yick Wo, there was no expectation that Ordinance No. 532 would be administered "with an evil eye and an unequal hand" (i.e., discriminatorily).
• Barbier vs. Connolly (113 U.S. 27 [1884]): Cited for comparison, likely as an example of a valid exercise of police power regulating businesses (in that case, also laundries in California), reinforcing the principle that regulations serving public welfare are permissible.
• Young vs. Rafferty (33 Phil. 556 [1916]): Distinguished from the present case. The Court noted that Young involved an administrative regulation by the Collector of Internal Revenue regarding the language of merchants' books based on specific delegated powers primarily for governmental convenience, whereas the present case involved a legislative enactment (ordinance) based on both specific power (regulate laundries) and the broad police power, aimed at public welfare.

• Administrative Code, Section 2444, paragraph (l) (as amended by Act No. 2774, section 8): Part of the Manila Charter, granting the Municipal Board the power "To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for... laundries". Cited as a source of the City's specific power to regulate the laundry business.
• Administrative Code, Section 2444, paragraph (ee) (as amended by Act No. 2774, section 8): Part of the Manila Charter (General Welfare Clause), granting the Municipal Board the power "To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity, and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants...". Cited as a primary source of the City's authority (police power) to enact Ordinance No. 532.