The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted the general manager of a Bacolod hotel who was previously found guilty by lower courts of violating the Senior Citizens Act after refusing to grant an additional discount to elderly guests whose accommodation rate was already discounted.
In a ruling Wednesday, Oct. 14, reversing decisions by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Regional Trial Court, and Court of Appeals, the High Tribunal cleared Orville U. Ong, general manager of a local hotel, of charges under Republic Act No. 7432, as amended by RA 9994 (the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010).
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by hotel guests lawyer Paul S. Alcazaren, 66, and Eric Gadiana, 70, after Ong declined to apply a 20 percent senior citizen discount to their bill, a SC Public Information Office post on its website said.
Ong maintained that a 20 percent discount had already been integrated into the special group rate negotiated for the Cebu Bikers Club, to which the two guests belonged, it said.
While the reduction was not itemized separately on the official receipt, the discount had already been deducted from the overall room charges.
The Supreme Court ruled that because the guests had already availed of the 20 percent reduction through their club’s negotiated rate, the hotel was under no obligation to grant an additional discount.
Under the law, senior citizen discounts cannot be combined with other promotional or special group rates, the SC ruled.
In cases where goods or services are offered at discounted or promotional pricing, senior citizens may opt for either the promotional rate or the statutory 20 percent senior citizen discount—whichever yields greater savings, it said.
The High Court noted that requiring businesses to stack discounts beyond what the law mandates creates an unfair burden on commercial establishments.
While reaffirming that the Senior Citizens Act serves to protect and assist elderly Filipinos, the tribunal emphasized that the law’s enforcement must remain fair and balanced toward private enterprises.
“[T]he 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 Supreme Court said.*
[sibwp_form id=1]