Title
Calalang vs. Williams
Case
G.R. No. 47800
Decision Date
Dec 2, 1940
A taxpayer challenged traffic regulations restricting animal-drawn vehicles in Manila, alleging unconstitutional delegation of power and infringement on liberty. The Supreme Court upheld the regulations, ruling they were a valid exercise of police power for public welfare.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 47800)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Petition
    • Maximo Calalang, private citizen and taxpayer of Manila, petitions for a writ of prohibition.
    • Respondents:
      • A. D. Williams, Chairman of the National Traffic Commission.
      • Vicente Fragante, Director of Public Works.
      • Sergio Bayan, Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
      • Eulogio Rodriguez, Mayor of Manila.
      • Juan Dominguez, Acting Chief of Police of Manila.
  • Administrative Proceedings
    • July 17, 1940: National Traffic Commission resolution recommends prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles on:
      • Rosario Street (Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmarinas Street) from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
      • Rizal Avenue (railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street) from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., for one year from opening of the Colgante Bridge.
    • July 18, 1940: Chairman Williams recommends the same to Director of Public Works under Commonwealth Act No. 548.
    • August 2, 1940: Director Fragante’s first indorsement modifies Rizal Avenue limit to Antipolo Street–Azcárraga Street.
    • August 10, 1940: Secretary Bayan approves the modified recommendation for one-year closure.
  • Enforcement and Effects
    • Mayor Rodriguez and Chief of Police Dominguez enforce the regulations.
    • Animal-drawn vehicles barred from passing or picking up passengers in the designated zones, allegedly harming vehicle owners and restricting public convenience.

Issues:

  • Whether Commonwealth Act No. 548 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power.
  • Whether the traffic regulations unlawfully interfere with legitimate business or trade.
  • Whether the regulations abridge personal liberty and freedom of locomotion.
  • Whether the regulations infringe the constitutional mandate to promote social justice and economic security.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.