Facts:

Kwong Sing, in his own behalf and of other Chinese laundrymen who has
general and the same interest, filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction.
The Plaintiffs also questioned the validity of enforcing Ordinance No. 532 by
the city of Manila. Ordinance No. 532 requires that the receipt be in
duplicate in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind and number
of articles delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments.
The permanent injunction was denied by the trial court. The appellants claim
is that Ordinance No. 532 savors of class legislation; putting in mind that
they are Chinese nationals. It unjustly discriminates between persons in
similar circumstances; and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of
property rights. They also contest that the enforcement of the legislation is
an act beyond the scope of their police power. In view of the foregoing, this
is an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no, 532 is an act beyond the
scope of police power
(2) Whether or Not the enforcement of the same is a class legislation that infringes
property rights.

Held:

Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible

under the police power. The police power of the City of Manila to enact
Ordinance No. 532 is based on Section 2444, paragraphs (l) and (ee) of the
Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 2744.
The court held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No. 532 was to avoid disputes
between laundrymen and their patrons and to protect customers of laundries who
are not able to decipher Chinese characters from being defrauded. (Considering
that in the year 1920s, people of Manila are more familiar with Spanish and maybe
English.)
In whether the ordinance is class legislation, the court held that the ordinance
invades no fundamental right, and impairs no personal privilege. Under the guise of

police regulation, an attempt is not made to violate personal property rights. 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. All, without exception, and each every one of
them without distinction, must comply with the ordinance. The obvious objection for
the implementation of the ordinance is based in sec2444 (ee) of the Administrative
Code. Although, an additional burden will be imposed on the business and
occupation affected by the ordinance such as that of the appellant by learning even
a few words in Spanish or English, but mostly Arabic numbers in order to properly
issue a receipt, it seems that the same burdens are cast upon the them. Yet, even if
private rights of person or property are subjected to restraint, and even if loss will
result to individuals from the enforcement of the ordinance, this is not sufficient
ground for failing to uphold the power of the legislative body. The very foundation
of the police power is the control of private interests for the public welfare.
Finding that the ordinance is valid, judgment is affirmed, and the petition for a
preliminary injunction is denied, with costs against the appellants.