CALALANG vs WILLIAMS
individual are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing which should
Facts:
The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution, resolved to
recommend to Department of the Public Works and to the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications that
animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing certain roads
for a period of 1 year from the date of the opening of the
Colgante Bridge to traffic. It was adopted in pursuance of the
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 - which authorizes
the Director of Public Works with the approval from the
Secretary of Public Works and Communication to promulgate
rules and regulations to control the use of and traffic on
national roads.
The Director recommended to the Sec. the approval of the
recommendations and later on approved the same. The Mayor
of Manila have enforced and caused to be enforced the rules
and regulations. As a consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles
are not allowed to pass and pick up passengers in the places
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 Comm. Act. No. 548 constitutes an
unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade and
abridged the right to personal liberty and freedom of
locomotion
2. Whether the rules and regulations complained to infringe
upon 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 ti 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
not be made to prevail over authority because society will fail
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 depotism, 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 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,
quiet of all persons, and of bringing about the greatest good to
the greatest number.
BERNARDO vs NLRC
Facts:
Petitioners, 43 deaf-mutes were hired on various periods from
1988 to 1993 by respondent Far East Bank and Trust Co. as
Money Sorters and Counters through a uniformly worded
agreement called “Employment Contract for Handicapped
Workers”. Subsequently, they were dismissed.
Petitioners maintain that they should be considered regular
employees because their task as money sorters and counters
was necessary and desirable to the business of respondent
bank. They further alleged that their contracts served merely to
preclude the application of Art. 280 and to bar them from
becoming regular employees.
Private respondent submits that petitioners were hired only as
“special workers and should not in any way be considered as
part of the regular complement of the Bank”. rather they were
“special” workers under Art. 80 of the Labor Code.
Issue:
Whether petitioners have become regular employees.
Held:
The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners
stipulated that they shall be trained for a period of 1 month,
after which the employer shall determine whether or not they
should be allowed to finish the 6-month term of the contract.
Furthermore, the employer may terminate the contract at any
time for a just and reasonable cause. Unless renewed in writing
by the employer, the contract shall automatically expire at the
end of the term.
Respondent bank entered into the aforesaid contract with a
total of 56 handicapped workers and renewed the contracts of
37 of them. In fact, two of them worked from 1988 to 1993.
verily, the renewal of the contracts of the handicapped workers
and the hiring of others lead to the conclusion that their tasks
were beneficial and necessary to the bank. More important,
these facts show that they were qualified to perform the
responsibilities of their position. In other words, their disability
did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks assigned
to them.
Without a doubt, the task of counting and sorting bills is
necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank.
With the exception of 16 of them, petitioners performed these
tasks for more than 6 months.
In this light, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates
that a qualified disabled employee should be given the same
terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied
person. Section 5 of the Magna Carta provides:
“Sec.5. Equal Opportunity for Employment. - No disabled
person shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable
employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to
the same terms and conditions of employment and the same
compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives
or allowances as a qualified able bodied person.”
The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons
necessarily removes the employment contracts from the ambit
of Art. 80. Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights of
qualified abled-persons, they are thus covered by Art.280 of
the Labor Code, which provides:
“Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the
employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer, xxx.”
“The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether
the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer. The connection can be
determined by considering the nature of the work performed
and its relation to the scheme of the particular business of
trade in its entirety. Also if the employee has been performing
the job for at least 1 year, even if the performance is not
continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated
and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence
of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the
business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but
only with respect to such activity, and while such activity
exists.”
MMDA vs CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MANILA BAY
Facts:
Respondents filed a complaint before the RTC against several
government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the
clean up, rehabilitation and protection of the Manila Bay. The
complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had
fallen way below the allowable standards set by law,
specifically PD 1152. Respondents prayed that petitioenrs be
ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a
concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.
RTC rendered a decision ordering the defendant-government
agencies to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.
Petitioners argued that PD 1152 relates only to the cleaning og
specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general.
Apart from raising concerns about lack of funds, petitioenrs
also asserted that the cleaning of Manila Bay is not a
ministerial act, which can be compelled by mandamus.

CA denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed in toto the decision
of the RTC.
Issue:
1. Whether PD 1152 is limited only to the cleanup of specific
pollution incidents.
2. Whether petitioners may be compelled by mandamus to
clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.
Held:
1. PD 1152 does not in any way state that the government
agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the
containment , removal, and cleaning operations when a
specific pollution incident occurs. The underlying duty to
upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the
occurrence of any pollution incident.
Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision
specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and
the men and women representing them cannot escape their
obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters
of Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.
2. Petitioners may be compelled. The MMDA’s duty in the area
of solid waste disposal is set forth not only in the Environment
Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. This
duty of putting up proper waste disposal system cannot be
characterized as discretionary for discretion presupposes the
power or right given by law to public functionaries to act
officially according to their judgment or conscience.
A perusal of other petitioner’s respective charters would yield
to the conclusion that these government agencies are enjoined,
as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain
functions relating directly or indirectly to the clean up,
rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay.
They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.
KNIGHTS OF RIZAL vs DMCI
Facts:
DMCI acquired a lot in the City of Manila. The lot was
earmarked for the construction of DMCI-PDI’s Torre de Manila
condominium project. DMCI-PDI secured the needed permits
to allow it to build a 49 storey with basement and 2 penthouse
level Condominium on the property. The City Council of Manila
issued Reso. No. 121 enjoining the Office of the Building Official
to temporarily suspend the Building Permit of DMCI-PDI, that
the “Torre de Manila Condominium” will rise up high above the
back of the national monument, to clearly dwarf the statute of
our hero and would certainly ruin the line of sight of the Rizal
Shrine from the frontal Roxas Blvd. vantage point.
The Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments (MZBAA) issued
Zoning Board Reso. No. 06, Series of 2013 recommending the
approval of DMCI-PDI’s application for variance. The MZBAA
noted that the Torre de Manila project “exceeds the prescribed
Maximum Percentage of Land Occupancy and Floor Area Ratio.
The City Coucil of Manila issued Reso. No 5, Series of 2014
adopting the Zoning Board Reso. Nos. 06 and 06-a (amended
condition in earlier resolution). The City Coucil resolution
stated that “the City Council of Manila finds no cogent reason
to deny and/or reverse the aforesaid recommendation of the
MZBAA and thereby ratifies and conforms all previously issued
permits, licenses and approvals issued by the City Council of
Manila for Torre de Manila.
Knights of RI=izal (KOR) filed a petition for injunction seeking a
TRO against construction of Torre de Manila. KOR asserts that
the structure will stick out like a sore thumb, dwarf all
surrounding buildings within a radius of 2 km and forever ruin
the sightline of Rizal Monument in Luneta Park.
Issue:
1. Whether existing laws concerning the preservation of
historic sites prohibit the construction of Torre de Manila.
2. Whether the court can issue a writ of mandamus against the
Officials of the City of Manila to stop the Construction of
DMCI-PDI’s Torre de Manila project.
Held:
1. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de
Manila due to its effect on the background “view, vista,
sightline or setting” of the Rizal Monument. Zoning, as well as
land use, in the City of Manila is governed by Ordinance No.
8119. The ordinance provides for standards and guidelines to
regulate development projects of historic sites and facilities
within Manila.

It is clear that the standards laid down in Sec. 47 of Ordinance
NO. 8119 only serve as guides as it expressly states that “the
following guide the development of historic sites and facilities:.
Consequently, there is nothing in Sec.47 and 48 of Ordinance
No. 8119 that disallows the construction of a building outside
the boundaries of a historic site or facility where such building
may affect the background of a historic site. In this case, the
Torre de Manila stands 870 meters outside and to the rear of
the Rizal Monument and “cannot possibly obstruct the frontal
view of the Rizal Monument”.
Another law is RA 10066 or the National Cultural Heritage Act.
The same law does not mention that another project, building
or property, not itself a heritage property or building, ma be
subject of a cease and desist order when it adversely affects
the background view, vista or sightline of a heritage property
or building. Thus, it cannot apply to the Torre de Manila
project.
2. The Rules on Civil Procedure are clear that Mandamus only
issues when there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the
office/officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and
when the party seeking mandamus has a clear legal right to the
performance of such act.
To compel the City of Manila to consider the standards under
Ordinance No. 819 to the Torre de Manila project will be an
empty exercise since these standards cannot apply outside of
the Rizal Park - and the Torre de Manila is outside of the Rizal
Park. Mandamus will lie only if the officials of the City of Manila
have a ministerial duty to consider these standards to buildings
outside of the Rizal Park.
THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL CASE
It is indeed an indisputable fact that the discovery of oil has
dramatically changed the human life. The oil dominates our
daily life in several of direct and indirect ways in a variety of
forms. However, at the same time, petroleum and its
by-products have become a major threat to the environment
over the last two centuries. Most importantly, the spillages of
oil from accidents involving tankers and oil rigs have polluted
our seas as well as oceans and badly affected the marine
ecosystem.
Over the period of last two centuries, a number of accidents
involving oil tankers and rigs have resulted in the spillage
of millions of gallons of oil into our oceans. Among the oil spills
occurred in the last five decades, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill remains
a prominent one. In an accident took place almost 30 years
ago, over 11 million gallons of crude oil was released into the
waters of the Gulf of Alaska, hurting the ecosystem badly as it
killed hundreds of thousands of species.
Major Facts about the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
It was on March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck
the Bligh Reef in the Prince William Sound region of Alaska to
begin one of the biggest maritime fatalities at that time. Exxon
Valdez, then owned by Exxon Shipping Company, was en route
t0 Long Beach, California from the Valdez Marine Terminal
when it slammed into the reef at around 12 am local time. The
tanker was loaded with roughly 54 million gallons oil of which
10.8 million gallons were released into the waters of Prince
William Sound as the hull of the vessel was torn open in the
accident. Exxon Valdez oil spill considered to be the second
major oil spill occurred in the US territory after the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.
What Caused the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill?
Various reports following the accident have identified a
number of factors that made Exxon Valdez ran aground on the
reef under the command of Captain Joseph Hazelwood. It was
reported that the captain was not at the helm of tanker when it
met with the accident in a route that is known for its
navigational hazards. According to reports, before handing
over the ship’s control to the Third Mate, Hazelwood had
apparently altered the vessel’s course to avoid icebergs. The
Third Mate, unfortunately, failed to manoeuvre the vessel
properly and the vessel left the shipping lane to end up
colliding with the reef, chiefly due to broken radar. In fact, the
radar was not working for more than a year before the oil spill
accident.
Further investigations also revealed that Hazelwood was under
the influence of alcohol and he was asleep in his bunk during
the time of the accident. Investigators also pointed that
Hazelwood made a mistake by handing over the vessel’s helm
to the sleep-deprived Third Mate, who was also not
professionally qualified to take control of the vessel. The vessel
also didn’t have sufficient crew abroad to perform the duties,
further investigations revealed.
Moreover, authorities found that Exxon, like many other
shipping companies, was not following measures that had
agreed upon, including the installation of iceberg monitoring
equipment. Reports also said the accident occurred as the ship
took a route which was not prescribed under the normal
shipping route. Because of this violation by the Exxon Valdez,
owner Exxon Mobil charted out a clause which spoke about the
strict following of the prescribed shipping routes and lanes so
as to avoid any further marine accident of a magnitude like the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. After a year-long investigation and trial,
Hazelwood was acquitted of being drunk during the voyage.
However, the captain was convicted of misdemeanour
negligence; fined $50,000 and sentenced to serve 1,000 hours
of community service.
The Impact of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
However, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill occurred in the
non-continuous coastline of Alaska, its effects and
ramifications were huge and enormous. As the collision of the
supertanker with the reef ruptured 8 of its 11 cargo tanks,
releasing 11 million gallons of crude oil-250,000 barrels-into
the waters of Prince William Sound in the days to come, over
1,300 miles of coastline was contaminated. It was reportedly a
delay in initiating the cleanup efforts that made this accident
catastrophic. The oil slick spread to more areas within days,
making it no longer containable.
As the oil slick spread, the ecosystem consisted of a variety of
marine and other species was under threat. Plants and marine
mammals in the cold region, which were already facing the
threat of extinction because of the rise in temperatures, had to
deal with this human error. In addition, seabirds were also
forced to succumb to this disaster as the oil slick in the water
trapped them to drown eventually. It is estimated that almost
250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, up to 300 harbour seals,
250 bald eagles and at least 22 killer whales were killed in this
deadliest accident. In addition, the spill has also ended the lives
of an unknown number of herring and salmon, the
investigations conducted in the following months revealed. As
an immediate result, the fisheries for crab, herring, rockfish,
salmon and shrimp etc. were closed in the area, while a ban on
the commercial fishing of some variety of shrimp and salmon
remained through 1990. While it affected many financially, the
indirect impact of the oil spill was visible on the several ends of
the fishing industry.
The ill-effects of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill were not only for the
marine creatures but also for the people residing in the
adjacent areas of Prince William Sound. One of the immediate
short-term effects of the casualty caused by the Exxon Valdez
was the impact on recreational fishing which was carried out in
the Prince William Sound. This was greatly hampered because
of the penetration of oil into the waters. In the year that the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill was caused, there was a total financial
loss of up to $580 million due to the reduction and in some
areas, the complete absence of recreational fishing.
Additionally, tourism was also hampered throughout Alaska
after the accident. The number of tourists arrived in Alaska was
in record low for almost a year following the oil spill, making a
significant impact on the local economy. According to reports,
the oil spill affected more than 26,000 jobs in the tourism
industry and over $2.4 billion in business. However, most
importantly, the impact of the oil spill was not just limited to
this. The long-term impact of the accident was and is being felt
more on the eco-system and the environment. And, in spite of
the fact that the company Exxon Mobil helped greatly in the
clean-up operations along with the US Coast Guard, the
inadvertent-yet-avertable accident caused by the Exxon Valdez
ended up leaving a huge impact. Even years after the accident,
the region is yet to recover completely from the oil spill. The oil
discharged from the Exxon Valdez still clogs the beaches in
Alaska, the fishing industry that collapsed after the accident
hasn’t recovered fully and the trauma it created among the
fishing communities still remain- in the form of separated
families and alcoholism etc.
Alaskan court to pay $5 billion in punitive damages. However,
after a number of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court reduced the
amount to $507.5 million.
During the operation, the methods used for the cleaning up of
the oil included burning, mechanical cleanup, while chemical
dispersants were also used to control the impact of the oil spill.
However, the penetration into the further depths of the ocean
caused by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill was way too enormous for
clearing-up immediately. The cleaning of the surface oil’ was
cleared up to a larger extent, while the ‘sub-surface oil’
remained as a cause for the negative impact on the ecology.
The sub-surface oil appears to be inactive in terms of negative
impact but in reality, contains far more poisonous content that
could harm not just the marine creatures but also the flora and
fauna. At present, despite the clean-up, about 20 acres of the
Alaskan coastline is supposed to be polluted by this sub-surface
oil phenomenon.
The enormity of the marine casualty caused by Exxon Valdez is
something that is being felt even in recent times and will be
seen even in the future. But owing to the prompt and effective
response from the concerned parties, the impact of the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill will definitely be reduced rather than being
completely destructive in the absence of any clean-up
response. Owing to this positivity of the situation, one can rest
assured that in spite of an accident happening, one managed to
avert the worst and ended up doing a marine salvage in the
best possible manner.

Clean Up of the Exxon Valdez Spill

The clean-up operations were largely successful since the
response to the incident was prompt not only by the US
government but also by the company – Exxon Mobil. Over
11,000 personnel, 58 air crafts and 1,400 vessels were used to
clear the affected area and it involved complex operations like
relocating several marine creatures in order to safeguard their
life till the clean-up operations were completed successfully.
The entire course of the clean-up operation took around three
years from 1989 to 1992 and even now, monitoring is being
carried out in the entire length of the coastline to observe any
late-emerging effects of the oil spill.
According to reports, the shipping company spent more than
$3.8 billion for the cleanup operations and also compensated
11,000 fishermen and others affected by the disaster. The
accident also followed a number of legal battles between the
shipping company and the federal government as well as
Alaska fishermen’s union. In 1994, Exxon was asked by an