Professional Documents
Culture Documents
General Principles
(Art 211)
1.
MAXIMO
CALALANG
WILLIAMS, ET AL., G.R.
December 2, 1940
vs.
No.
A.
D.
47800.
FACTS:
The National Traffic Commission, in its
resolution of 17 July 1940, resolved to
recommend to the Director of 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 Dasmarias Street, from 7:30 a.m. to
12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.;
and along Rizal Avenue extending from the
railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague
Street, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., from 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 18 July
1940, recommended to the Director of Public
Works the adoption of the measure proposed
in the resolution, in pursuance of the
provisions of Commonwealth Act 548, which
authorizes said Director of Public Works, with
the approval of the Secretary of Public Works
and Communications, to promulgate rules and
regulations to regulate and control the use of
and traffic on national roads.
On 2 August 1940, the Director of Public
Works, in his first indorsement to the
Secretary
of
Public
Works
and
Communications, recommended to the latter
the approval of the recommendation made by
the Chairman of the National Traffic
Commission, with the modification that the
closing of Rizal Avenue to traffic to animaldrawn vehicles be limited to the portion
thereof extending from the railroad crossing
at Antipolo Street to Azcarraga Street. On 10
August 1940, the Secretary of Public Works
and
Communications,
in
his
second
indorsement addressed to the Director of
Public Works, approved the recommendation
of the latter that Rosario Street and Rizal
Avenue be closed to traffic of animal-drawn
vehicles, between the points and during the
hours as indicated, for a period of 1 year from
the date of the opening of the Colgante
Bridge to traffic. The Mayor of Manila and the
Acting Chief of Police of Manila have enforced
ISSUES:
1) Whether the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Director of Public Works
infringe upon the constitutional precept
regarding the promotion of social justice to
insure the well-being and economic security
of all the people?
2) Whether or not there is undue delegation of
legislative power?
RULING:
1) The promotion of social justice is to be
achieved not through a mistaken sympathy
towards any given group. Social justice is
"neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy," but the humanization
of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the State so that justice in
its rational and objectively secular conception
may at least be approximated. 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 principle of
salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice,
therefore, 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
the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons,
and of bringing about "the greatest good to
the greatest number."
HELD:
NO. The challenged resolution was affirmed
AFFIRMED in toto except for the grant of
separation pay in the form of financial
assistance, which was disallowed.
There should be no question that where it
comes to such valid but not iniquitous causes
as failure to comply with work standards, the
grant of separation pay to the dismissed
employee
may
be
both
just
and
compassionate, particularly if he has worked
for some time with the company. The award to
the employee of separation pay would be
sustainable under the social justice policy
even if the separation is for cause.
But where the cause of the separation is more
serious than mere inefficiency, the generosity
of the law must be more discerning. There is
no doubt it is compassionate to give
separation pay to a salesman if he is
dismissed for his inability to fill his quota but
surely he does not deserve such generosity if
his offense is misappropriation of the receipts
of his sales. This is no longer mere
incompetence but clear dishonesty.
The policy of social justice is not intended to
countenance wrongdoing simply because it is
committed by the underprivileged. At best it
may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will
not condone the offense. Compassion for the
poor is an imperative of every humane society
but only when the recipient is not a rascal
claiming an undeserved privilege. Social
justice cannot be permitted to be refuge of
scoundrels any more than can equity be an
impediment to the punishment of the guilty.
Those who invoke social justice may do so
only if their hands are clean and their motives
blameless and not simply because they
happen to be poor. This great policy of our
Constitution is not meant for the protection of
those who have proved they are not worthy of
it, like the workers who have tainted the
cause of labor with the blemishes of their own
character.
10.
JOSE
Y.
SONZA
vs.
ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 138051
June 10, 2004
FACTS:
In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement
with Mel & Jay Management and Development
Corp for a radio and television program. ABS-
HELD:
YES. An employee-employer relationship was
found to have existed between Dy Keh Beng
and complainants Tudla and Solano, although
Solano was admitted to have worked on piece
basis.
The test of the existence of employee and
employer relationship is whether there is an
understanding between the parties that one is
to render personal services to or for the
benefit of the other and recognition by them
of the right of one to order and control the
other in the performance of the work and to
direct the manner and method of its
performance. It should be borne in mind that
the control test calls merely for the existence
of the right to control the manner of doing the
work, not the actual exercise of the right.
Parenthetically, since the work on the baskets
is done at Dy's establishments, it can be
inferred that the proprietor Dy could easily
exercise control on the men he employed.
Circumstances
must
be
construed
to
determine indeed if payment by the piece is
just a method of compensation and does not
define the essence of the relation.