G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

Like

22

Tweet

chanrobles.com

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > December 1940 Decisions > G.R. No. 47800 December
2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS
070 Phil 726:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 47800. December 2, 1940.]

1 of 9

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

MAXIMO CALALANG, Petitioner, v. A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL., Respondents.

Maximo Calalang in his own behalf.
Solicitor General Ozaeta and Assistant Solicitor General Amparo for respondents Williams,
Fragante and Bayan
City Fiscal Mabanag for the other respondents.
SYLLABUS

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

ChanRobles Intellectual Property

Division

2 of 9

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 648; DELEGATION OF

LEGISLATIVE POWER; AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SECRETARY OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. The provisions of
section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 648 do not confer legislative power upon the Director of Public Works
and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The authority therein conferred upon them and
under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what
public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in
said Act, to wit, "to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated
as national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the
Philippines" and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic "whenever the condition of the
road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and
interest." The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but
merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to be
predicated. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and
how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic
thereon and the requirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which
cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly. It must depend on the discretion of some other
government official to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for
executing the law. But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law.
2. ID.; ID.; POLICE POWER; PERSONAL LIBERTY; GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. Commonwealth Act
No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the paramount police power of the state.
Said Act, by virtue of which the rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims to promote
safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of the public.
In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public
convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the
least, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of 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 subjected to all kinds of restraints and
burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state (U.S. v. Gomer
Jesus, 31 Phil., 218). To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the individual are
subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to
prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to
prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve the
required balance of liberty and authority in his mind through education and, personal discipline, so that
there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and happiness for all.

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

The moment greater authority is conferred upon the government, logically so much is withdrawn from
the residuum of liberty which resides in the people. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent
curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of insuring its preservation.
3. ID.; ID.; SOCIAL JUSTICE. 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 extraconstitutionally, 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."

DECISION

LAUREL, J.:

Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a private citizen and as a taxpayer of Manila, brought before this
court this petition for a writ of prohibition against the respondents, A. D. Williams, as Chairman of the
National Traffic Commission; Vicente Fragante, as Director of Public Works; Sergio Bayan, as Acting
Secretary of Public Works and Communications; Eulogio Rodriguez, as Mayor of the City of Manila; and
Juan Dominguez, as Acting Chief of Police of Manila.

December-1940 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 46942 December 2, 1940 - EL GOBIERNO DE

LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
070 Phil 720
G.R. No. 47800 December
CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS

2,

1940

MAXIMO

070 Phil 726

G.R. No. 47129 December 5, 1940 - PEDRO M.

3 of 9

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 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; that the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission, on July 18, 1940 recommended
to the Director of Public Works the adoption of the measure proposed in the resolution aforementioned,
in pursuance of the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 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; that on August 2, 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 as aforesaid, with the modification that the closing of Rizal Avenue to traffic to
animal-drawn vehicles be limited to the portion thereof extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

BLANCO v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

070 Phil 735
G.R. No. 47297 December 5, 1940 - J. C. WILLIS v. EL
PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS
070 Phil 743
G.R. No. 47336 December 5, 1940 - MANILA
ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS
PUBLICOS Y CHARITO GRAY
070 Phil 746
G.R. No. 47384 December 6, 1940 - ISIDRO
ALEJANDRO Y OTROS v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA
INSTANCIA DE BULACAN
070 Phil 749
G.R. No. 47468 December 5, 1940 - GOVERNMENT OF
THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO D. JERVASIO
071 Phil 1
G.R. No. 47564 December 5, 1940 - VETERANS OF
THE
PHILIPPINE
CONSTABULARY
v.
VICENTE
ALBERT, ET AL.
071 Phil 3
G.R. No. L-47755 December 5, 1940 - LINDA
MOHAMED BARRUECO v. QUIRICO ABETO, ET AL.
071 Phil 7
G.R. No. 47940 December 6, 1940 - JUAN SUMULONG
v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
071 Phil 12

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

Street to Azcarraga Street; that on August 10, 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 above indicated, for a period of one year from the date of the opening of
the Colgante Bridge to traffic; that the Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have
enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and regulations thus adopted; that as a consequence of
such enforcement, 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.
It is contended by the petitioner that Commonwealth Act No. 548 by which the Director of Public Works,
with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, is authorized to promulgate
rules and regulations for the regulation and control of the use of and traffic on national roads and streets
is unconstitutional because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. This contention is
untenable. As was observed by this court in Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil, 660, 700), "The
rule has nowhere been better stated than in the early Ohio case decided by Judge Ranney, and since
followed in a multitude of cases, namely: The true distinction therefore is between the delegation of
power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an
authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first
cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. (Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. Co. v. Commrs.
Clinton County, 1 Ohio St., 88.) Discretion, as held by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman v. Southard (10
Wheat., 1) may be committed by the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature
may make decisions of executive departments or subordinate officials thereof, to whom it has committed
the execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact. (U.S. v. Kinkead, 248 Fed., 141.) The growing
tendency in the decisions is to give prominence to the necessity of the case."
cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 548 reads as follows:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. To promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as
national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines,
the Director of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications,
shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on
such roads and streets. Such rules and regulations, with the approval of the President, may contain
provisions controlling or regulating the construction of buildings or other structures within a reasonable
distance from along the national roads. Such roads may be temporarily closed to any or all classes of
traffic by the Director of Public Works and his duly authorized representatives whenever the condition of
the road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and
interest, or for a specified period, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications."
cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 47633 December 6, 1940 - JUAN S. RUSTIA

v. AVELINO R. JOAQUIN
071 Phil 22
G.R. No. 46970 December 6, 1940 - ORIENTAL
COMMERCIAL CO., INC. v. JUREIDINI, INC.
071 Phil25

4 of 9

cralaw:red

The above provisions of law do not confer legislative power upon the Director of Public Works and the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The authority therein conferred upon them and under
which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public
policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said
Act, to wit, "to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as
national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines"
and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic "whenever the condition of the road or the
traffic makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest." The delegated

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

G.R. No. 47063 December 7, 1940 ELECTRIC COMPANY v. VICENTE FRAGANTE

MANILA

071 Phil 31
G.R. No. 47941 December 7, 1940
CRISTOBAL v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

MIGUEL

071 Phil 34
G.R. No. 47262 December 9, 1940 - JOSE MORENTE v.
SALVADOR FIRMALINO
071 Phil 49
G.R. No. 47186 December 12, 1940 - FLORENCIO
GARDUKE v. ANTAMOK GOLDFIELDS MINING CO.
071 Phil 52
G.R. No. 47505 December 12, 1940 - CELERINA
LACUESTA, ET AL. v. CORNELIO LESIDAN, ET AL.
071 Phil 59
G.R. No. 47664 December 12, 1940 - PETRA YABES,
ET AL. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.
071 Phil 63
G.R. No. 47048 December 13, 1940 - VICENTE
PERALTA v. JOSE PERALTA
071 Phil 66
G.R. No. 47496 December 13, 1940 - JACINTO
BALELA v. BENIGNO AQUINO
071 Phil 69
G.R. No. 47534 December 13, 1940 - ANGEL
VILLARUZ, ET AL. v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA
INSTANCIA DE NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.
071 Phil 72
G.R. No. 47014 December 14, 1940 - PROVINCIAL
TREASURER OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS v. ASSOCIATED
OIL COMPANY

5 of 9

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely the
ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to be predicated.
To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a
national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the
requirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directly
discharged by the National Assembly. It must depend on the discretion of some other government official
to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law.
But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law. As was said in Lockes
Appeal (72 Pa. 491): "To assert that a law is less than a law, because it is made to depend on a future
event or act, is to rob the Legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is
passed relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or to things future and impossible to fully know."
The proper distinction the court said was this: "The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make the
law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the
law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of
government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be
known to the law-making power, and, must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination outside
of the halls of legislation." (Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 694; 36 L. Ed. 294.)
In the case of People v. Rosenthal and Osmea, G.R. Nos. 46076 and 46077, promulgated June 12,
1939, and in Pangasinan Transportation v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, promulgated
June 26, 1940, this Court had occasion to observe that the principle of separation of powers has been
made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern governments, giving rise to the adoption, within
certain limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation," not only in the United States and England but
in practically all modern governments. Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the
multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering
the laws, the rigidity of the theory of separation of governmental powers has, to a large extent, been
relaxed by permitting the delegation of greater powers by the legislative and vesting a larger amount of
discretion in administrative and executive officials, not only in the execution of the laws, but also in the
promulgation of certain rules and regulations calculated to promote public interest.
The petitioner further contends that the rules and regulations promulgated by the respondents pursuant
to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 constitute an unlawful interference with legitimate
business or trade and abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion. Commonwealth
Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the paramount police power of the
state.
Said Act, by virtue of which the rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims to promote
safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of the public.
In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public
convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic. which is, to say the
least, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of 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 subjected to all kinds of restraints and
burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state (U.S. v. Gomez
Jesus, 31 Phil., 218). To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the individual are
subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to
prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

071 Phil 78
G.R. No. 47227 December 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE
FILIPINAS v. MANUEL RIVERA
071 Phil 83
G.R. No. 47383 December 14, 1940 - EUGENIO
MINTU v. ANTONIO BOBADILLA
071 Phil 85
G.R. No. 47506 December 14, 1940 - VICTOR P.
HERNANDEZ v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
071 Phil 88
G.R. No. 47285 December 16, 1940 - LEVY
HERMANOS, INC. v. MARIANO R. LACSON, ET AL.
071 Phil 94
G.R. No. 47116 December 17,
VILLALON v. MANUEL VILLALON

1940

MARIA

071 Phil 98
G.R. No. 47157 December 18, 1940 - MAXIMINO A.
NAZARENO v. SAMAHANG MAGWAGUI
071 Phil 101
G.R. No. 47009 December 19, 1940 - DOMINGO
GERIO v. NEMESIO GERIO
071 Phil 106
G.R. No. 47029 December 19, 1940 - RUFINO S.
ROQUE, ET AL. v. ESPERANZA VIUDA DE LOGAN

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve the
required balance of liberty and authority in his mind through education and personal discipline, so that
there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and happiness for all.
The moment greater authority is conferred upon the government, logically so much is withdrawn from
the residuum of liberty which resides in the people. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent
curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of insuring its preservation.
The scope of police power keeps expanding as civilization advances. As was said in the case of Dobbins v.
Los Angeles (195 U.S. 223, 238; 49 L. ed. 169), "the right to exercise the police power is a continuing
one, and a business lawful today may in the future, because of the changed situation, the growth of
population or other causes, become a menace to the public health and welfare, and be required to yield
to the public good." And in People v. Pomar (46 Phil., 440), it was observed that "advancing civilization is
bringing within the police power of the state today things which were not thought of as being within such
power yesterday. The development of civilization, the rapidly increasing population, the growth of public
opinion, with an increasing desire on the part of the masses and of the government to look after and care
for the interests of the individuals of the state, have brought within the police power many questions for
regulation which formerly were not so considered."
cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner finally avers that 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. The promotion of social justice, however, 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 extraconstitutionally, 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."
cralaw virtua1aw library

071 Phil 108

G.R. No. 47108 December 19, 1940 - EL
REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v.
JULIANA PENGSON

In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for is hereby denied, with costs against the
petitioner. So ordered.
Avancea, C.J., Imperial, Diaz. and Horrilleno. JJ. concur.

071 Phil 109

G.R. No. 47121 December 19, 1940 - EL DIRECTOR
DE TERRENOS v. ESTEBAN ABINGAYAN, ET AL.

6 of 9

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

071 Phil 112

Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 47231 December 19, 1940 - CARIDAD

ESTATES, INC. v. PABLO SANTERO

QUICK SEARCH

071 Phil 114

G.R. No. 47233 December 19, 1940 - MANILA
TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR
UNION

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

071 Phil 124

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

G.R. No. 47244 December 19, 1940 - PLACIDO

MASICAMPO v. JUSTO LOZADA

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

071 Phil 137

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

G.R. No. 47248 December 19, 1940 - GERMAN

QUIONES v. ANICETO PADRIGON
071 Phil 138
G.R. No. 47362 December 19, 1940 - JUAN F.
VILLAROEL v. BERNARDINO ESTRADA
071 Phil 140
G.R. No. 47378 December 19, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE
FILIPINAS v. PEDRO AQUINO
071 Phil 143
G.R. No. 47414 December 19, 1940 - JOSEFA PABLO,
ET AL. v. AMBROSIO SAPUNGAN, ET AL.
071 Phil 145

Main Indices of the Library --->

Go!

G.R. No. 47431 December 19, 1940 - CONCORDIA

CUEVAS v. PEDRO ABESAMIS, ET AL.
071 Phil 147
G.R. No. 47435 December 19, 1940 - HARRIE S.
EVERETT v. LAZARUS G. JOSEPH, ET AL.
071 Phil 153
G.R. No. 47464 December 19, 1940 - HOSKYN & CO.,
INC. v. ENRIQUE A. MARTIN, JR.

7 of 9

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

071 Phil 154

G.R. No. 47469 December 19, 1940 - LAI WOON v.
CANDIDO DERIADA
071 Phil 157
G.R. No. 47507 December 19, 1940 - ROSARIO LIM
QUECO v. ELENA RAMIREZ DE CARTEGA
071 Phil 162
G.R. Nos. 47544 & 47611 December 19, 1940 MINDANAO BUS COMPANY v. MINDANAO BUS
COMPANY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
071 Phil 168
CA 5482 December 20, 1940 - MANUELA GARCIA DE
RAMOS, ET AL. v. ALFREDO L. YATCO
071 Phil 178
G.R. No. 47095 December 20,
LUCIANO v. AGATON JUAN, ET AL.

1940

ANGEL

071 Phil 180

G.R. No. 47276 December 20, 1940 - BASILIA
CABRERA v. RICARDO C. LACSON, ET AL.
071 Phil 182
G.R. No. 47592 December 20, 1940 - PURIFICACION
PASCUA v. MARIANO NABLE
071 Phil 186
G.R. No. 47299 December 21, 1940 - ANGEL T.
LIMJOCO v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY
071 Phil 189
G.R. No. 47304 December 21, 1940 - TEO TIAM v. LA
COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS, ET AL.
071 Phil 193
G.R. No. 47306 December 21, 1940 - CITY OF
MANILA v. MIGUEL GAWTEE, ET AL.

8 of 9

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br...

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940decemberdecisions.php?id=237

071 Phil 195

G.R. No. 47307 December 21, 1940 - MARIO S.
PRISCILLA v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS
071 Phil 200
G.R. No. 47314 December 21, 1940 - MARIANO H.
LIM, INC. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUELICOS,
ET AL.
071 Phil 202
G.R. No. 47340 December 21, 1940 - LAWYERS
COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY v. FERNANDO
PERIQUET, ET AL.
071 Phil 204

Copyright 1998 - 2016 ChanRobles Publishing Company |Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

9 of 9

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

| chanrobles.com

RED

12/08/2016, 2:51 PM