MANILA— The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a Bacolod hotel general manager of violating the Senior Citizens Act, ruling that the hotel was not required to grant an additional discount to guests who had already benefited from a reduced room rate.

In a decision acted upon by the SC En Banc on Oct. 14, the court reversed the convictions of Orville U. Ong in G.R. No. E-00464, Orville U. Ong v. Paul S. Alcazaren and Eric Gadiana.

Ong had been accused of refusing to provide the 20% senior citizen discount to hotel guests Atty. Paul S. Alcazaren, 66, and Eric Gadiana, 70.

The hotel manager maintained that the guests, who were members of the Cebu Bikers Club, had already received a 20% discount through the room rate negotiated for the group. Although the discount was not itemized on the official receipt, Ong argued that it had already been deducted from the total bill.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Regional Trial Court, and Court of Appeals had found Ong guilty before the high court overturned their rulings.

The SC explained that under Republic Act No. 7432, or the Senior Citizens Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 9994, or the Expanded Senior Citizen Act of 2010, Filipino residents aged 60 and above are entitled to various benefits, including a 20% discount on services offered by hotels, restaurants, and recreation centers.

However, the court clarified that senior citizen discounts cannot be combined with other discounts. For goods and services offered at promotional prices, senior citizens may choose between the promotional discount and the statutory 20% discount, depending on which provides greater savings.

The SC noted that requiring businesses to grant an additional discount beyond what the law allows would unfairly benefit customers at the expense of establishments.

While recognizing the law’s objective of protecting and supporting senior citizens, the court stressed that its implementation must also account for the interests of businesses.

As the SC explained, “[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.”