Calalang vs Williams

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the
case cited. Xie xie!

Calalang vs Williams
GR 47800
December 2, 1940

Social Justice as the aim of Labor Laws

CRUZ, J.:

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
animal-drawn 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 and caused
to be enforced the rules and regulations thus adopted. Maximo Calalang, in his capacity
as a private citizen and as a taxpayer of Manila, brought before the Supreme court the
petition for a writ of prohibition against 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.

Issue:

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.

Held:

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."
 Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod
Posted on November 27, 2012

201 SCRA 210

G.R. No. 100113
September 3, 1991
Facts:
Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Corazon C. Aquino as chairman of the
COMELEC. Cayetano questioned the appointment for Monsod allegedly lacked the necessary
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.
The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of
the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a
college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately
preceding elections.However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of
the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
It was established that after graduating from the College of Law and hurdling the Bar, respondent
worked in his fathers law office for a short while, then worked as an Operations Officer in the
World Bank Group for about 2 years, which involved getting acquainted with the laws of
member-countries, negotiating loans, and coordinating legal, economic and project work of the
Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines, he worked with the Meralco Group, served as Chief
Executive Officer of an investment bank and has subsequently worked either as Chief Executive
Officer or Consultant of various companies.
Issue
1. Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the
COMELEC.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in
confirming Monsods appointment.
Held
1. YES. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava: The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in courtIn general, all advice to clients, and all
action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of
mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held
to constitute law practice.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill. In general, a practice of law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is
whether in or out of court.

A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration
engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights
under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or
prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission
constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the
law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that
purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations
of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees
as lawyer for more than 10 years. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist,
a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional

```requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination of the Comelec Chairman by
the president is mandated by the constitution. The power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess
the qualification required by law. From the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise
its corrective power since there is no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.