The  petitioner-appellant, an  association  of registered massagists  and licensed  operators  of massage  clinics in the  City  of Manila and other parts of the country, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila for declaratory  judgment  regarding the validity of Municipal Ordinance No.  3659, promulgated by the Municipal Board and approved  by the City Mayor.   To stop the City from enforcing said ordinance,  the  petitioner  secured an  injunction  upon  filing of a bond in the sum of P1,000.00. A hearing was held, but  the parties without introducing any evidence submitted the case for decision on the pleadings, although they submitted written memoranda.   There after,  the  trial  court  dismissed  the petition and  later dissolved the  writ of injunction previously issued.

The petitioner appealed said  order of dismissal directly to this Court.  In support of its appeal, petitioner-appellant contends  among  other things that  the  trial  court erred in holding that  the  Ordinance in question  has not restricted the practice  of massotherapy in massage clinics to hygienic and aesthetic massage, that the  Ordinance is valid as it does not regulate the practice of massage, that the Municipal Board of Manila has the power to enact the Ordinance in question  by virtue of Section 18, Subsection (kk), Republic  Act 409, and that the permit fee of P100.00 is moderate  and not unreasonable.  Inasmuch as the appellant assails  and discusses certain provisions regarding the ordinance in question, and it is necessary to pass upon the  same, for  purposes of  ready  reference, we are  reproducing said  ordinance in  toto.

ORDINANCE NO. 3659

AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE OPERATION  OP  MASSAGE  CLINICS   IN  THE   CITY  OF   MANILA" AND PROVIDING  PENALTIES FOR  VIOLATIONS  THEREOF. .

Be it ordained  by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, that:

SECTION 1. Definition, For  the purpose  of  this  Ordinance the following words and phrases shall be taken in the sense herein below indicated:

(a) Massage clinic shall include any place or establishment used in the  practice of hygienic and  aesthetic massage;

(b) Hygienic and aesthetic massage shall include any system of manipulation or  treatment of  the superficial  parts of the human body for hygienic and aesthetic purposes by  rubbing,  stroking, kneading, or tapping with the hand or an  instrument;

(c) Massagist  shall include any person who shall have passed the required examination  and  shall have been issued a massagist certificate by the Committee of Examiners for Massagist, or by the Director of Health or  his authorized representative;

(d) Attendant  or helper shall  include any person employed by a duly qualified massagist in any massage clinic to assist the latter in the practice of hygienic and aesthetic  massage;

(e) Operator shall include  the owner, manager, administrator, or any person  who operates or is responsible for the operation of a massage clinic.

SEC.  2. Permit   Fees. No person  shall engage in the operation of a massage  clinic or in the occupation of attendant or  helper therein without  first  having obtained a  permit therefor  from the Mayor,  For every permit granted  under the  provisions  of  this Ordinance,  there shall be paid to the City Treasurer the following annual fees:

(a)  Operator of a massage ................................  P100.00
(b)  Attendant or helper ..................................... ........5.00

Said permit, which shall be renewed every year, may be  revoked 'by the Mayor at any  time for  violation of this Ordinance.

SEC. 3. Building requirement. (a) In  each  massage  clinic,  there shall be separate rooms for the male and female customers.  Rooms where  massage  operations  are performed  shall  be provided  with sliding1 curtains  only instead of swinging doors.  The clinic  shall be properly ventilated, well lighted and maintained under sanitary conditions at all times while the establishment is open for business and  shall  be provided  with  the  necessary  toilet  and washing facilities.

(b) In every  clinic there shall be  no private rooms or separated compartment except those  assigned  for  toilet, lavatories, dressing room, office  or kitchen.

(c) Every massage clinic shall be provided with only one entrance and  it shall have  no  direct or indirect  communication whatsoever with any dwelling place, .house or  building.

SEC. 4. Regulations  for the operation of  massage clinics. (a) It shall be unlawful for any operator, massagist, attendant or helper to use, or allow the use of, a massage clinic  as  a place  of assignation or permit the commission  therein of any indecent  or immoral act. Massage clinics shall be used only for hygienic and aesthetic massage.

(b)  Massage  clinics shall open  at eight o'clock a.m.  and  shall close at eleven o'clock p.m.

(c) While engaged  in the  actual performance  of their duties, massagists,  attendants and helpers in a  massage clinic shall  be  as properly  and  sufficiently clad  as  to avoid  suspicion  of intent  to commit an  indecent or immoral act;

(d) Attendants or  helpers may  render service to any  individual customer only for hygienic and aesthetic purposes under  the  order, direction,  supervision,  control  and  responsibility  of  a qualified massagist.

SEC. 5.  Qualifications No person  who has  previously  been convicted  by final  judgment  of  competent  court of  any  violation  of the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 5 of Art, 202 .and  Arts. 335, 336, 340  and 342 of  the Revised Penal  Code, or  Sees. 819 of the City of Manila, or  who is suffering from any venereal  or  communicable disease shall  engage in  the  occupation of  massagist, attendant or helper in any massage clinic.  Applicants, for Mayor's permit  shall  attach  to their  application a police  clearance  and health certificate duly  issued by the City Health Officers as well as a massagist certificate duly issued by the Committee or Examiners for  Massagists  or by  the  Director  of  Health  or  his  authorized. representatives,  in case of massagist.

SEC. 6. Duty of operator of massage clinic. No operator of massage clinic shall allow  such clinic  to operate without a duly, qualified massagist  nor allow  any  man  or woman  to act as  massagist, attendant or helper  therein without  the Mayor's permit  provided for  in the  preceding sections.  He shall  submit  whenever required by  the  Mayor or his authorized representative the  persons acting as  massagists, attendants or helpers  in  his clinic.   He shall place the massage clinic open to inspection at all times by  the police, health officers, and other law  enforcement agencies  of  the government, shall be held liable for anything  which may happen within the  premises  of the  massage clinic.

SEC. 7. Penalty. Any person violating any  of the provisions of this Ordinance shall  upon conviction, be  punished by a fine of not less than  fifty  pesos  nor  more  than two  hundred pesos or  by imprisonment for not less than sis days  nor more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment,  at the discretion of the court.

SEC. 8. Repealing Clause. All ordinances or parts of ordinances, which are  inconsistent herewith, are hereby  repealed.

SEC.  9. Effectivity. This  Ordinance shall  take  effect upon  its approval.

Enacted, August 27, 1954.

Approved, September 7, 1954,

The main contention  of the appellant in its appeal and the principal  ground of its petition for declaratory judgment is  that the  City  of  Manila  is  without   authority to  regulate the operation of massagists and the  operation. of  massage  clinics  within  its jurisdiction;  that  whereas under the Old City Charter,  particularly, Section 2444  (e) of  the Revised Administrative Code, the Municipal Board was expressly granted the power to regulate and fix the license  fee  for  the occupation  of   massagists,  under  the New Charter of Manila, Republic Act 409, said power has been withdrawn or  omitted and that now  the Director of Health, pursuant  to authority conferred  by Section 938 of the Revised Administrative Code and Executive Order No.  317, series of 1941,  as  amended by Executive Order No.  392, series, 1951, is the  one who exercises supervision over the  practice  of  massage and  over massage clinics in the Philippines; that the  Director of Health has issued Administrative Order No. 10, dated May 5, 1953, prescribing  "rules and regulations governing the examination for admission  to  the  practice of massage,  and the operation of massage clinics, offices, or establishments in  the Philippines", which order was approved  by  the  Secretary  of Health and duly  published  in the Official  Gazette;  that Section 1  (a) of Ordinance No.  3659  has  restricted  the practice of massage to only hygienic and aesthetic massage prohibits or does not allow qualified massagists  to practise therapeutic massage in  their massage clinics.   Appellant also contends that the license fee of P100.00 for operator in Section 2  of the Ordinance is  unreasonable, nay,  unconscionable.

If we can ascertain the intention of the Manila Municipal Board in promulgating the Ordinance in question, much of the  objection  of appellant to  its  legality may be solved. It would appear to us that  the purpose  of the Ordinance is not to  regulate  the practice of massage, much less  to restrict the practice of  licensed and  qualified  massagists of therapeutic massage in the Philippines. The  end sought to be attained in the Ordinance is  to prevent the commission of immorality and the  practice of  prostitution in an establishment masquerading  as a massage clinic where the operators thereof  offer to massage or manipulate superficial parts of the bodies of customers  for hygienic and aesthetic purposes.  This intention can readily be understood by the  building requirements in Section 3 of the Ordinance, requiring that there be separate rooms for male and  female customers; that  instead of said  rooms being separated by  permanent partitions  and swinging doors, there should only be sliding curtains  between them; that there should be "no private  rooms or separated compartments, except those assigned  for toilet, lavatories, dressing room, office or kitchen"; that every massage clinic should be provided with  only one entrance and shall have no direct  or  indirect communication whatsoever with any dwelling place,  house or  building-; and  that no operator, massagist, attendant or helper will be allowed "to use or allow the use of a massage clinic as a place of assignation or permit  the  commission therein  of  any immoral or indecent act", and in fixing the operating hours  of such clinic between 8:00 a.m.  and 11:00  p.m.   This intention of the Ordinance was correctly ascertained by Judge Hermogenes Concepcion, presiding  in the trial court, in his order of dismissal where he said:  "What the Ordinance tries to avoid is that the massage clinic run by an operator who may not be a masseur or massagista may be  used as cover for the running or maintaining a house of prostitution."

Ordinance No. 3659, particularly, Sections 1 to 4, should be considered as  limited to massage clinics used  in the practice of hygienic and aesthetic massage.  We  do not believe  that the Municipal Board of the  City of  Manila and the Mayor wanted or intended to regulate the practice of massage in general or restrict the  same to hygienic and aesthetic only.

As to the  authority of  the  City  Board to enact the Ordinance  in question, the City Fiscal,  in representation of the appellees, calls our  attention  to  Section 18  oi the New Charter of the City of Manila, Republic Act No. 409, which, gives legislative powers to the Municipal Board to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and general  welfare  of  the City and  its inhabitants.   This is generally referred to  as the General Welfare Clause, a delegation in  statutory form  of the police power,  under which  municipal corporations  are authorized to  enact ordinances to provide for the  health and safety,  and promote the morality,  peace and general welfare of its inhabitants. We agree with  the City Fiscal.

As regards  the permit fee  of  P100.00,  it will be  seen that said fee is made payable not by the masseur or massagist, but by  the operator of a massage clinic  who  may not  be a massagist  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 without  considering' it as a' tax for revenue purposes:

"The amount  of  the  fee or charge is  properly  considered  in determining whether it is a. tax or an  exercise of the police power. The  amount may be so  large as to itself  show that the purpose was to raise revenue  and not to regulate, but in regard  to this matter there is  a marked  distinction between license fees imposed upon useful and  beneficial occupations which the sovereign wishes to regelate but   not restrict,  and those which  are inimical and dangerous  to ¦public health, moral or  safety.  In  the  latter case the  fee may  be very  large  without  necessarily  being a,  tax.", (Cooley on Taxation, Vol.  IV, pp.  3516-17;  underlining supplied.)

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.

In conclusion,  we find and hold that the Ordinance in question  as we interpret it and as intended by the appellees is valid.   We deem it unnecessary to discuss and  pass upon the other points raised  in the appeal,  the order appealed  from is. hereby affirmed.  No  costs.

Paras,  C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.