MAXIMO CALALANG, 
Petitioner, v. A. D. WILLIAMS, The Supreme Court ruled that the regulation was a
ET AL.
I.Facts/Summary
The National Traffic Commission recommended 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 Dasmariñas 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. It was
subsequently passed and thereafter Manila Mayor
and the acting chief of police 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.
Maximo Calalang, as a citizen and a taxpayer
contended the constitutionality of the 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 as
it constitute an undue delegation of legislative power.
II.Issue/s
1. Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by
the Director of Public Works infringes upon the
constitutional precept regarding the promotion of
social justice
2. The petitioner also contends rules and regulations
promulgated constitute an unlawful interference with
legitimate business or trade and abridge the right to
personal liberty and freedom of locomotion.
Ruling:
Decision of the Supreme Court
valid exercise of police power in the interest of public
welfare. Moreover, it ruled that as the Legislature
cannot delegate its power to make the law, 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, on its own; and the denial of the fact
would mean halting the activities of the government.
The rules and regulations regarding the prohibition of
animal-drawn carriages aims to promote safe transit
upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the
interest and convenience of the public, inspired by
the desire to relieve congestion of traffic; this in turn,
promotes public welfare which the State aims to
promote. Furthermore, the Supreme Court
emphasized that the promotion of social justice is to
be observed not through a mistaken sympathy
towards any given group; that social justice must be
founded on the recognition of the needs of the
different units of the society and the protection of
these units must be equal and evenly extended to all.
SOSITO VS. AGUINALDO DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
Facts: Petitioner Manuel Sosito was employed in
1964 by the private respondent, a logging company,
and was in charge of logging importation, with a
monthly salary of P675.00, when he went on
indefinite leave with the consent of the company on
January 16, 1976. On July 20, 1976, the private
respondent, through its president, announced a
retrenchment program and offered separation pay to
employees in the active service as of June 30, 1976,
who would tendertheir resignations not later than July
31, 1976. The petitioner decided to accept this offer
and so submitted his resignation on July 29, 1976,
"to avail himself of the gratuity benefits" promised.
However, his resignation was not acted upon and he
was never given the separationpay he expected. The
petitioner complained to the Department of Labor,
where he was sustained by the labor arbiter. The
company was ordered to pay Sosito the sum of P
4,387.50, representing his salary for six and a half
months. On appeal to the National Labor Relations
Commission, this decision was reversed and it was
held that the petitioner was not covered by the
retrenchment program.
Issue:whether or not the petitioner is entitled to
separation pay under the retrenchment program of
the private respondent.
Held:The petitioner is not one of those entitled for
separation pay under the retrenchment program. It is
clear from the memorandum that the offer of
separation pay was extended only to those who were
in the active service of the company as of June 30,
1976. It is equally clear that the petitioner was not
eligible for the promised gratuity as he was not
actually working with the company as of the said
date. Being on indefinite leave, he was not in the
active service of the private respondent although, if
one were to be technical, he was still in its employ.
Even so, during the period of indefinite leave, he was
not entitled to receive any salary or to enjoy any
other benefits available to those in the active service.
The court stands that While the Constitution is
committed to the policy of social justice and the
protection of the working class, it should not be
supposed that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. Management
also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to
respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair
play. Out of its concern for those with less privileges
in life, this Court has inclined more often than not
toward the worker and upheld his cause in his
conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism,
however, has not blinded us to the rule that justice is
in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in
the light of the established facts and the applicable
law and doctrine.
Ondoy vs. Ignacio et. al. 97 SCRA 252 G.R. No. L-
47178 May 16, 1980
[Estrella B. Ondoy, petitioner vs. Virgilio Ignacio,
Proprietor M/B Lady Estrellita and/or Imperial Fishing
Enterprises and/or the Secretary of Labor and/or The
Compensation Appeals and Review Staff,
Department of Labor, Respondents]
Facts: The petitioner, Estrella Ondoy, is a mother of
one Jose Ondoy, an employee who worked under
Virgilio Ignacio. According to the chief engineer and
oiler, Jose Andoy was aboard the ship of the
respondent’s enterprise as part of the workforce. He
was invited by friends to a drinking spree, left the
ship and thereafter was found dead due to drowning.
Thus the petitioner asked for compensation,
however, the testimonies by the chief engineer were
dismissed by the hearing officer due to lack of merit.
Afterwards, a motion for reconsideration was also
filed before the Secretary of Labor, but was denied
again due to lack of merit.
Issue: Whether or not the compensation for Jose’s
death is constitutional. Whether or not Social Justice
has a role in this case.
Ruling: The Supreme Court granted the petition,
granting Estrella Ondoy 6,000 pesos as
compensation for Jose’s death, 300 pesos for burial
fees and 600 pesos as attorney’s fee with the costs
against respondent, Ignacio.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of social justice
applied in this case is a matter of protection, and not
equality. The Supreme Court recognized the right of
petitioner to claim a compensation from the
respondent, as Jose did drown while “in the actual
performance of his duty.” To fortify this ruling, the SC
cited cases wherein, with accordance to the
constitutional scheme of social justice and protection
to labor, Workmen’s Compensation Act, which dealt
with the right of workers for compensation for
personal injury, was applied. Among them is a case
where there was no direct testimony attesting that the
deceased drowned while in the performance of his
duty, however, the compensation was sustained.
Lastly from another case, the SC quoted that “as
between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and
the employer, who has resources to secure able legal
advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter
strict compliance. Social justice in these cases is not
equality but protection.