MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a Bacolod hotel manager accused of denying two senior citizens their 20 percent discount, ruling that the law does not require businesses to grant an additional discount when customers have already benefited from a promotional rate.
In a decision announced Wednesday, the SC En Banc cleared Orville U. Ong, general manager of a hotel in Bacolod, of violating Republic Act 7432, or the Senior Citizens Act, as amended by Republic Act 9994, or the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010.
Ong was charged with refusing to grant the statutory discount to hotel guests Paul S. Alcazaren, 66, a lawyer, and Eric Gadiana, 70, members of the Cebu Bikers Club.
Ong argued that the hotel had applied a 20 percent discount to the room rate negotiated for the club. Although the discount was not separately itemized on the official receipt, it had been deducted from the total bill.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals had all found Ong guilty before the high tribunal overturned their rulings.
The High Court ruled that the guests had already received the 20 percent discount through the club's negotiated rate, leaving the hotel with no obligation to provide another reduction.
The Court explained that senior citizen discounts could not be combined with other discounts. When goods or services are offered at promotional prices, eligible senior citizens may choose between the promotional rate and the statutory 20 percent discount, whichever provides greater savings.
Granting an additional discount beyond what the law permits, the court said, would unfairly burden businesses by requiring them to shoulder benefits beyond their legal obligations.
While recognizing the Senior Citizens Act's goal of protecting and supporting older Filipinos, the Court stressed that its implementation must also be fair and reasonable to business establishments.
“The State’s pursuit of public welfare cannot be allowed to impose undue or confiscatory burdens on private establishments, whose continued viability is essential to the long-term effectiveness of the law,” the court said.