Officials of a Pasig hotel are facing charges for refusal to extend to a senior citizen her request for a 20-percent discount on the cost of its services.

In a 22-page resolution, the Pasig City Prosecutor’s Office charged the president and finance director of the hotel with violation Republic Act No. 9994 or the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2021 and Article 116 of Republic Act No. 7394 or the Consumer Act of the Philippines .

The information was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City. Bail was set at P36,000 for each of the respondents.

Represented by lawyer Romulo Macalintal, complainant senior citizen Melinda Rada complained that the hotel management failed to grant her 20 percent discount for its services when requested.

Rada said she checked in at the hotel on November 25, 2022 for a two -day stay.

Upon checking out, Rada said she presented her senior citizen identification card to avail of the 20 percent discount provided under RA 9994. She also asked for exemption from payment of the 12 percent Value Added Tax to which she was entitled to.

However, the hotel management merely granted the 12 percent EVAT exemption, pointing out that her stay is already covered by discounts under its “Winter Promotion Rate”.

During the preliminary investigation of the case, the hotel’s president iinsisted that senior citizen’s discount under RA 9994 could no longer be granted because Rada checked into the hotel through an online travel agency that availed of the discount under the promotional rate.

Further, the hotel management manifested that there was no malice or bad intent on their part not to extend the discounted rate to Rada.

In resolving the case, the investigating prosecutor rejected the claim of good faith, pointing out that this is inconsequential in considering cases involving violations of special laws such as RA 9994 and RA 7394.

“It is well-settled in criminal jurisprudence that failure to comply with the law, being malum prohibitum (wrong in itself) intent to commit it or good faith is immaterial,” the prosecutor explained.

The prosecutor also described as “a mere afterthought” the hotel management’s offer to refund the discount sought by Rada and extend a free overnight stay in the hotel.

Further, the investigating prosecutor also resolved that the existing promo agreement between the hotel and the agent does apply to Rada.

“The existing contract does not apply to the complainant (Rada) because she is not privy to the same. Complainant or the public for that matter, which the law seeks to protect, are not aware of the same,” the resolution read.