ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Labor Relations, Volume II of a 3-Volume Series 2017 Edition, 5th Revised Edition,
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-1940 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46942 December 2, 1940 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    070 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS

    070 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. 47129 December 5, 1940 - PEDRO M. BLANCO v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    070 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 47297 December 5, 1940 - J. C. WILLIS v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    070 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 47336 December 5, 1940 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS Y CHARITO GRAY

    070 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 47384 December 6, 1940 - ISIDRO ALEJANDRO Y OTROS v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE BULACAN

    070 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. 47468 December 5, 1940 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO D. JERVASIO

    071 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47564 December 5, 1940 - VETERANS OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    071 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. L-47755 December 5, 1940 - LINDA MOHAMED BARRUECO v. QUIRICO ABETO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 47940 December 6, 1940 - JUAN SUMULONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    071 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 47633 December 6, 1940 - JUAN S. RUSTIA v. AVELINO R. JOAQUIN

    071 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 46970 December 6, 1940 - ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL CO., INC. v. JUREIDINI, INC.

    071 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 47063 December 7, 1940 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. VICENTE FRAGANTE

    071 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 47941 December 7, 1940 - MIGUEL CRISTOBAL v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    071 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 47262 December 9, 1940 - JOSE MORENTE v. SALVADOR FIRMALINO

    071 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 47186 December 12, 1940 - FLORENCIO GARDUKE v. ANTAMOK GOLDFIELDS MINING CO.

    071 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 47505 December 12, 1940 - CELERINA LACUESTA, ET AL. v. CORNELIO LESIDAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 47664 December 12, 1940 - PETRA YABES, ET AL. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. 47048 December 13, 1940 - VICENTE PERALTA v. JOSE PERALTA

    071 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 47496 December 13, 1940 - JACINTO BALELA v. BENIGNO AQUINO

    071 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. 47534 December 13, 1940 - ANGEL VILLARUZ, ET AL. v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 47014 December 14, 1940 - PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS v. ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY

    071 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 47227 December 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MANUEL RIVERA

    071 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 47383 December 14, 1940 - EUGENIO MINTU v. ANTONIO BOBADILLA

    071 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 47506 December 14, 1940 - VICTOR P. HERNANDEZ v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    071 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 47285 December 16, 1940 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. MARIANO R. LACSON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 47116 December 17, 1940 - MARIA VILLALON v. MANUEL VILLALON

    071 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 47157 December 18, 1940 - MAXIMINO A. NAZARENO v. SAMAHANG MAGWAGUI

    071 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. 47009 December 19, 1940 - DOMINGO GERIO v. NEMESIO GERIO

    071 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 47029 December 19, 1940 - RUFINO S. ROQUE, ET AL. v. ESPERANZA VIUDA DE LOGAN

    071 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 47108 December 19, 1940 - EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. JULIANA PENGSON

    071 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 47121 December 19, 1940 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. ESTEBAN ABINGAYAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 47231 December 19, 1940 - CARIDAD ESTATES, INC. v. PABLO SANTERO

    071 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 47233 December 19, 1940 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION

    071 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 47244 December 19, 1940 - PLACIDO MASICAMPO v. JUSTO LOZADA

    071 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 47248 December 19, 1940 - GERMAN QUIÑONES v. ANICETO PADRIGON

    071 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 47362 December 19, 1940 - JUAN F. VILLAROEL v. BERNARDINO ESTRADA

    071 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 47378 December 19, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PEDRO AQUINO

    071 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 47414 December 19, 1940 - JOSEFA PABLO, ET AL. v. AMBROSIO SAPUNGAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 47431 December 19, 1940 - CONCORDIA CUEVAS v. PEDRO ABESAMIS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 47435 December 19, 1940 - HARRIE S. EVERETT v. LAZARUS G. JOSEPH, ET AL.

    071 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 47464 December 19, 1940 - HOSKYN & CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE A. MARTIN, JR.

    071 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 47469 December 19, 1940 - LAI WOON v. CANDIDO DERIADA

    071 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 47507 December 19, 1940 - ROSARIO LIM QUECO v. ELENA RAMIREZ DE CARTEGA

    071 Phil 162

  • G.R. Nos. 47544 & 47611 December 19, 1940 - MINDANAO BUS COMPANY v. MINDANAO BUS COMPANY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

    071 Phil 168

  • CA 5482 December 20, 1940 - MANUELA GARCIA DE RAMOS, ET AL. v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    071 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 47095 December 20, 1940 - ANGEL LUCIANO v. AGATON JUAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 47276 December 20, 1940 - BASILIA CABRERA v. RICARDO C. LACSON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 47592 December 20, 1940 - PURIFICACION PASCUA v. MARIANO NABLE

    071 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 47299 December 21, 1940 - ANGEL T. LIMJOCO v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY

    071 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 47304 December 21, 1940 - TEO TIAM v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 47306 December 21, 1940 - CITY OF MANILA v. MIGUEL GAWTEE, ET AL.

    071 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 47307 December 21, 1940 - MARIO S. PRISCILLA v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    071 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 47314 December 21, 1940 - MARIANO H. LIM, INC. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUELICOS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 47340 December 21, 1940 - LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY v. FERNANDO PERIQUET, ET AL.

    071 Phil 204

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47800   December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br />070 Phil 726

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47800. December 2, 1940.]

    MAXIMO CALALANG, Petitioner, v. A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL., Respondents.

    Maximo Calalang in his own behalf.

    Solicitor General Ozaeta and Assistant Solicitor General Amparo for respondents Williams, Fragante and Bayan

    City Fiscal Mabanag for the other respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 648; DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER; AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. — The provisions of section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 648 do not confer legislative power upon the Director of Public Works and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said Act, to wit, "to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines" and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic "whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest." The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to be predicated. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the requirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly. It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law.

    2. ID.; ID.; POLICE POWER; PERSONAL LIBERTY; GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. — Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the paramount police power of the state. Said Act, by virtue of which the rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of the public. In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the least, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of 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 subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state (U.S. v. Gomer Jesus, 31 Phil., 218). To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the individual are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve the required balance of liberty and authority in his mind through education and, personal discipline, so that there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and happiness for all. The moment greater authority is conferred upon the government, logically so much is withdrawn from the residuum of liberty which resides in the people. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of insuring its preservation.

    3. ID.; ID.; SOCIAL JUSTICE. — 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."


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a private citizen and as a taxpayer of Manila, brought before this court this petition for a writ of prohibition against the respondents, 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.

    It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17, 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 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; that the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission, on July 18, 1940 recommended to the Director of Public Works the adoption of the measure proposed in the resolution aforementioned, in pursuance of the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 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; that on August 2, 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 as aforesaid, 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; that on August 10, 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 above indicated, for a period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic; that 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; 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.

    It is contended by the petitioner that 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 is unconstitutional because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. This contention is untenable. As was observed by this court in Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil, 660, 700), "The rule has nowhere been better stated than in the early Ohio case decided by Judge Ranney, and since followed in a multitude of cases, namely: ’The true distinction therefore is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.’ (Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. Co. v. Comm’rs. Clinton County, 1 Ohio St., 88.) Discretion, as held by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman v. Southard (10 Wheat., 1) may be committed by the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may make decisions of executive departments or subordinate officials thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact. (U.S. v. Kinkead, 248 Fed., 141.) The growing tendency in the decisions is to give prominence to the ’necessity’ of the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 548 reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 1. To promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines, the Director of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on such roads and streets. Such rules and regulations, with the approval of the President, may contain provisions controlling or regulating the construction of buildings or other structures within a reasonable distance from along the national roads. Such roads may be temporarily closed to any or all classes of traffic by the Director of Public Works and his duly authorized representatives whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest, or for a specified period, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The above provisions of law do not confer legislative power upon the Director of Public Works and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said Act, to wit, "to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines" and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic "whenever the condition of the road or the traffic makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest." The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to be predicated. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the requirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly. It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law. As was said in Locke’s Appeal (72 Pa. 491): "To assert that a law is less than a law, because it is made to depend on a future event or act, is to rob the Legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or to things future and impossible to fully know." The proper distinction the court said was this: "The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make the law; but 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, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law-making power, and, must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation." (Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 694; 36 L. Ed. 294.)

    In the case of People v. Rosenthal and Osmeña, G.R. Nos. 46076 and 46077, promulgated June 12, 1939, and in Pangasinan Transportation v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, promulgated June 26, 1940, this Court had occasion to observe that the principle of separation of powers has been made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern governments, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation," not only in the United States and England but in practically all modern governments. Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, the rigidity of the theory of separation of governmental powers has, to a large extent, been relaxed by permitting the delegation of greater powers by the legislative and vesting a larger amount of discretion in administrative and executive officials, not only in the execution of the laws, but also in the promulgation of certain rules and regulations calculated to promote public interest.

    The petitioner further contends that the rules and regulations promulgated by the respondents pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 constitute an unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade and abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion. Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the paramount police power of the state.

    Said Act, by virtue of which the rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of the public. In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic. which is, to say the least, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of 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 subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state (U.S. v. Gomez Jesus, 31 Phil., 218). To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the individual are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve the required balance of liberty and authority in his mind through education and personal discipline, so that there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and happiness for all. The moment greater authority is conferred upon the government, logically so much is withdrawn from the residuum of liberty which resides in the people. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of insuring its preservation.

    The scope of police power keeps expanding as civilization advances. As was said in the case of Dobbins v. Los Angeles (195 U.S. 223, 238; 49 L. ed. 169), "the right to exercise the police power is a continuing one, and a business lawful today may in the future, because of the changed situation, the growth of population or other causes, become a menace to the public health and welfare, and be required to yield to the public good." And in People v. Pomar (46 Phil., 440), it was observed that "advancing civilization is bringing within the police power of the state today things which were not thought of as being within such power yesterday. The development of civilization, the rapidly increasing population, the growth of public opinion, with an increasing desire on the part of the masses and of the government to look after and care for the interests of the individuals of the state, have brought within the police power many questions for regulation which formerly were not so considered."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The petitioner finally avers that 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. The promotion of social justice, however, 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for is hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz. and Horrilleno. JJ. concur.

    G.R. No. 47800   December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS<br /><br />070 Phil 726


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED