Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24K views

    Calalang vs. Williams (Digested Case)

    Uploaded by

    Amethyst Vivo Tanio
    The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Maximo Calalang challenging rules promulgated under Commonwealth Act No. 548 that prohibited animal-drawn vehicles from certain roads during certain hours. The Court held that (1) the rules were a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and reduce traffic congestion, and (2) the rules did not violate social justice principles as their aim was to balance the welfare of all people through maintaining economic and social equilibrium.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Calalang vs. Williams (Digested Case)

    Uploaded by

    Amethyst Vivo Tanio
    24K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Maximo Calalang challenging rules promulgated under Commonwealth Act No. 548 that prohibited animal-drawn vehicles from certain roads during certain hours. The Court held that (1) the rules were a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and reduce traffic congestion, and (2) the rules did not violate social justice principles as their aim was to balance the welfare of all people through maintaining economic and social equilibrium.

    Original Title

    Calalang vs. Williams [Digested Case]

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Maximo Calalang challenging rules promulgated under Commonwealth Act No. 548 that prohibited animal-drawn vehicles from certain roads during certain hours. The Court held that (1) the rules were a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and reduce traffic congestion, and (2) the rules did not violate social justice principles as their aim was to balance the welfare of all people through maintaining economic and social equilibrium.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    24K views2 pages

    Calalang vs. Williams (Digested Case)

    Uploaded by

    Amethyst Vivo Tanio
    The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Maximo Calalang challenging rules promulgated under Commonwealth Act No. 548 that prohibited animal-drawn vehicles from certain roads during certain hours. The Court held that (1) the rules were a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and reduce traffic congestion, and (2) the rules did not violate social justice principles as their aim was to balance the welfare of all people through maintaining economic and social equilibrium.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Group 6 Digest

    Calalang vs. Williams


    G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940
    Petitioner: Maximo Calalang
    Respondents: A.D. Williams, Et al.
    Ponente: Laurel, J:

    Facts:
    Maximo Calalang in his capacity as a private citizen and a taxpayer of Manila filed a
    petition for a writ of prohibition against the respondents.
    It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July
    17, 1940, resolved to recommend to the Director of the Public Works and to the Secretary of
    Public Works and Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing
    along Rosario Street extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas Street from 7:30
    Am to 12:30 pm and from 1:30 pm to 530 pm; and along Rizal Avenue extending from the
    railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street from 7 am to 11pm for a period of one year
    from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic.
    The Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on July 18, 1940 recommended to the
    Director of Public Works with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works the adoption of the
    measure proposed in the resolution aforementioned in pursuance of the provisions of the
    Commonwealth Act No. 548 which authorizes said Director with the approval from the
    Secretary of the Public Works and Communication to promulgate rules and regulations to
    regulate and control the use of and traffic on national roads.
    On August 2, 1940, the Director recommended to the Secretary the approval of the
    recommendations made by the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission with
    modifications. The Secretary of Public Works approved the recommendations on August 10,
    1940.
    The Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have enforced and caused
    to be enforced the rules and regulation. As a consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles are not
    allowed to pass and pick up passengers in the places above mentioned to the detriment not only
    of their owners but of the riding public as well.

    Issue:
    1. Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the respondents
    pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act NO. 548 constitute
    an unlawful inference with legitimate business or trade and abridged
    the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion?

    2. Whether the rules and regulations complained of infringe upon the


    constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to
    insure the well-being and economic security of all the people?
    Held:
    1. No. The promulgation of the Act aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid
    obstructions on national roads in the interest and convenience of the public. In
    enacting said law, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of
    public convenience and welfare. It was inspired by the desire to relieve
    congestion of traffic, which is a menace to the public safety. Public welfare lies
    at the bottom of the promulgation of the said law and the state in
    order to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal
    liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and
    property may be subject to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure
    the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State. To this fundamental
    aims of the government, the rights of the individual are subordinated. Liberty is
    a blessing which should not be made to prevail over authority because society
    will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over liberty
    because then the individual will fall into slavery. The paradox lies in the fact
    that the apparent curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of
    insuring its preserving.

    2. No. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
    adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability
    of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper
    economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
    community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable,
    or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence
    of all governments on the time-honored principles of salus populi est
    suprema lex.

    Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of


    interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the
    protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a
    combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental
    and paramount objective of the state of promoting health, comfort and quiet of
    all persons, and of bringing about “the greatest good to the greatest number.”

    THE PETITION IS DENIED WITH COSTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

    You might also like