Digest: Calalang vs Williams Echague Street from 7 am to 11pm

By nutshellgirl Posted in Digest, Digest: Labor Standards, General The Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on July 18, 1940
Tagged digest, labor, social justice Leave a comment
recommended to the Director of Public Works with the approval of
MAXIMO CALALANG vs A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL.,
the Secretary of Public Works the adoption of
G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940
thethemeasure proposed in the resolution aforementioned in pursuan
Doctrine: Social Justice
ce of the provisions of theCommonwealth Act No. 548 which author
LAUREL, J.:
izes said Director with the approval from the
Secretary of the Public Works and Communication to promulgate ru
Facts:
les and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on
national roads.
The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17, 1940,
resolved to recommend to the Director of the Public Works and to
On August 2, 1940, the Director recommended to the Secretary the
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications that animal-
approval of the recommendations made by the Chairman of the
drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along the following for a
National Traffic Commission with modifications. The Secretary of
period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante
Public Works approved the recommendations on August 10,1940.
Bridge to traffic:
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
1) Rosario Street extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to
consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and
Dasmarias
pick up passengers in the places above mentioned to the detriment
not only of their owners but of the riding public as well.
Street from 7:30Am to 12:30 pm and from 1:30 pm to 530 pm; and

Issues:
2) along Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad crossing at
1) Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Antipolo Street to
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 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 principles of
salus populi estsuprema 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.
Association of Small
Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. vs
Secretary of Agrarian
Reform
175 SCRA 343 Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of
Rights Equal Protection Valid Classification
Eminent Domain Just Compensation
These are four consolidated cases questioning the
constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (R.A.
No. 6657 and related laws i.e., Agrarian Land Reform Code or
R.A. No. 3844).
Brief background: Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice
and Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of
an agrarian reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an
agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and
regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers,
to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. RA 3844 was enacted
in 1963. P.D. No. 27 was promulgated in 1972 to provide for the
compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among
tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for
landowners. In 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O. No.
228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of
PD 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands
covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment.
In 1987, P.P. No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian
reform program (CARP) was enacted; later, E.O. No. 229,
providing the mechanics for its (PP131s) implementation, was
also enacted. Afterwhich is the enactment of R.A. No. 6657,
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law in 1988. This law, while
considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments,
nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not
inconsistent with its provisions.
[Two of the consolidated cases are discussed below]
G.R. No. 78742: (Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary)
The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines,
Inc. sought exception from the land distribution scheme provided
for in R.A. 6657. The Association is comprised of landowners of
ricelands and cornlands whose landholdings do not exceed 7
hectares. They invoke that since their landholdings are less than
7 hectares, they should not be forced to distribute their land to
their tenants under R.A. 6657 for they themselves have shown
willingness to till their own land. In short, they want to be exempted
from agrarian reform program because they claim to belong to a
different class.
G.R. No. 79777: (Manaay vs Juico)
Nicolas Manaay questioned the validity of the agrarian reform
laws (PD 27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground that these laws
already valuated their lands for the agrarian reform program and
that the specific amount must be determined by the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Manaay averred that this violated the
principle in eminent domain which provides that only courts can
determine just compensation. This, for Manaay, also violated due
process for under the constitution, no property shall be taken for
public use without just compensation.
Manaay also questioned the provision which states that
landowners may be paid for their land in bonds and not
necessarily in cash. Manaay averred that just compensation has
always been in the form of money and not in bonds.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection
clause.
2. Whether or not there is a violation of due process.
3. Whether or not just compensation, under the agrarian reform
program, must be in terms of cash.
HELD:
1. No. The Association had not shown any proof that they belong
to a different class exempt from the agrarian reform program.
Under the law, classification has been defined as the grouping of
persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and
different from each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it
must conform to the following requirements:
(1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;
(2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly
situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and
the liabilities imposed. The Association have not shown that they
belong to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The
argument that not only landowners but also owners of other
properties must be made to share the burden of implementing
land reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction
between these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except
to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this
matter. In any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in
providing for a valid classification. Its decision is accorded
recognition and respect by the courts of justice except only where
its discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights. In the
contrary, it appears that Congress is right in classifying small
landowners as part of the agrarian reform program.
2. No. It is true that the determination of just compensation is a
power lodged in the courts. However, there is no law which
prohibits administrative bodies like the DAR from determining just
compensation. In fact, just compensation can be that amount
agreed upon by the landowner and the government even without
judicial intervention so long as both parties agree. The DAR can
determine just compensation through appraisers and if the
landowner agrees, then judicial intervention is not needed. What
is contemplated by law however is that, the just compensation
determined by an administrative body is merely preliminary. If the
landowner does not agree with the finding of just compensation
by an administrative body, then it can go to court and the
determination of the latter shall be the final determination. This is
even so provided by RA 6657:
Section 16 (f): Any party who disagrees with the decision may
bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation.
3. No. Money as [sole] payment for just compensation is merely a
concept in traditional exercise of eminent domain. The agrarian
reform program is a revolutionary exercise of eminent domain.
The program will require billions of pesos in funds if all
compensation have to be made in cash if everything is in cash,
then the government will not have sufficient money hence, bonds,
and other securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be used for just
compensation.
DAR vs Delia Sutton
FACTS:
The case at bar involves a land in Aroroy, Masbate, inherited by
respondents which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf
breeding. On October 26, 1987, pursuant to the then existing agrarian
reform program of the government, respondents made a voluntary offer to
sell (VOS) their landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certain
incentives under the law.
On June 10, 1988, CARL took effect.
In view of the Luz Farms ruling, respondents filed with petitioner
DAR a formal request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was
devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus exempted from the coverage
of the CARL.
MARO inspected respondents land and found that it was devoted
solely to cattle-raising and breeding. He recommended to the DAR
Secretary that it be exempted from the coverage of the CARL.
DAR ignored their request
DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which provided that only
portions of private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock,
poultry and swine as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the
coverage of the CARL. In determining the area of land to be excluded,
the A.O. fixed the following retention limits, viz: 1:1 animal-land ratio.
DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order partially granting the
application of respondents for exemption from the coverage of CARL.
Respondents moved for reconsideration. They contend that their entire
landholding should be exempted as it is devoted exclusively to cattle-
raising. Their motion was denied.
Office of the President affirmed the order of DAR
On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the
respondents. It declared DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, void for being contrary
to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock
farms from the land reform program of the government.

ISSUE: Whether or not DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which prescribes a
maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is
constitutional.
HELD:
Assailed AO is unconstitutional.
In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as
it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock
farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing
a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However, the deliberations
of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter
alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry- raising.
Milestone Farms vs Office of the President
FACTS:
Among the pertinent secondary purposes of Milestone Farms are
1) to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; 2) to breed,
raise, and sell poultry; and 3) to import cattle, pigs, and other livestock,
and animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle, pigs, and other
livestock
On June 10, 1988, CARL took effect
In May 1993, petitioner applied for the exemption/exclusion of its
316.0422-hectare property pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of this
Court in Luz Farms.
Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, DAR issued AO No. 9, Series
of 1993, setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of
agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP
coverage.
Milestone re-documented its application pursuant to said AO.
DARs Land Use Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC)
conducted an ocular inspection on petitioners property and recommended
the exemption of petitioners 316.0422-hectare property from the coverage
of CARP.
DAR Regional Director Dalugdug adopted LUCECs
recommendation
The Pinugay Farmers, represented by Balajadia, moved for the
reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied by Director
Dalugdug. Hence, they filed an appeal with DAR Secretary
Subsequently, Milestone filed a complaint for Forcible Entry
against Balajadia and company before the MCTC.
MCTC ruled in favor of Milestone
RTC reversed the decision of MCTC
CA ruled in favor of Milestone
DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order exempting from CARP
only 240.9776 hectares of the 316.0422 hectares previously exempted by
Director Dalugdug, and declaring 75.0646 hectares of the property to be
covered by CARP.
Office of the President primarily reinstated the decision of Director
Dalugdug but when the farmers filed a motion for reconsideration, Office of
the President reinstated the decision of Director Garilao.
CA primarily ruled in favor of Milestone in exempting the entire
property from the coverage of CARP. However, six months earlier, without
the knowledge of the CA as the parties did not inform the appellate court
then DAR Secretary Villa issued DAR conversion order granting
petitioners application to convert portions of the 316.0422-hectare
property from agricultural to residential and golf courses use. The portions
converted was with a total area of 153.3049 hectares. With this
Conversion Order, the area of the property subject of the controversy was
effectively reduced to 162.7373 hectares.
 With the CA now made aware of these developments, particularly
Secretary Villas Conversion Order, CA had to acknowledge that the
property subject of the controversy would now be limited to the remaining
162.7373 hectares. CA, in its amended decision, states that the subject
landholding from the coverage of CARP is hereby lifted, and the 162.7373
hectare-agricultural portion thereof is hereby declared covered by the
CARP.

ISSUE: Whether or not Milestones property should be exempted from the

coverage of CARP

HELD:

No.
When CA made its decision, DAR AO No. 9 was not yet declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus, it could not be said that the
CA erred or gravely abused its discretion in respecting the mandate of
DAR A.O. No. 9, which was then subsisting and in full force and effect.
As correctly held by respondent OP, the CA correctly held that the
subject property is not exempt from the coverage of the CARP, as
substantial pieces of evidence show that the said property is not
exclusively devoted to livestock, swine, and/or poultry raising.