Mendoza vs. Dizon, 77 Phil 533 (1946)

EN BANC [GR No. L-387. October 25, 1946.] BALBINA MENDOZA, appellant, against PACIANO DIZON, in his capacity as Auditor General, appealed. Messrs. Eulalio Chaves and Eugene P. La Rosa, in representation of the appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General and the Attorney Alvendza Mr. Carreon, in representation of appeal. SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; BONUS (Gratuity); SIGNIFICANCE OR CONCEPT. - Administrative Order No.27 of December 7, 1945, using the gratuity word that has a known, categorical and conclusive in law and jurisprudence significance. The government has issued together that gratuity is not to wages, salary, or any other emolument. Means gift, prize, present, something given and received by lucrative title. In this case more accentuated the difference between the two concepts, considering that Congress, in its Joint Resolution No. 5 adopted on July 28, 1945, recommended the study of "ways and means to pay the back salaries, gratuities, bonuses or other emoluments of the loyal and deserving employees of the Commonwealth.... " The fact, therefore, that the President chose the term gratuity, leaving aside other words, indicates that this is a calculated concession; clearly shows the intention to strictly limit the scope of the privilege to the letter of the law.

DECISION

BRIONES, M. :

Versa this file on the application submitted originariarnente before this Court by Balbina Mendoza, recurrent, in which the requests that, under the jurisdiction and powers conferred on us by rule 45 of the Rules of the ibunales Tl, let's review the opinion issued by the Paciano office resorted Dizon, in his concept of Auditor General in the matter of gratification or gratuity of the late John M. Cuevas, legitimate son of recurrent. Facts and key points of the case are as follows: virtual library chanrob1es 1aw

Fulfilling its office of Auditor of the province of Ilocos Sur, Juan M. Cuevas died in Vigan, capital of the province, on November 3, 1945. At the outbreak of War on December 8, 1941, was on active duty as such Auditor. In 1932 he married Cuevas Cocadiz Florence. This marriage definitely stay dissolved March 21, 1944 under a firm divorce decree issued by the Court of First Instance of gatangas on that date. There was no offspring. It is undisputed that Balbina Mendoza, the appellant, is the next most relative of the deceased and, therefore, entitled to inherit, with exclusion of brothers and nephews that he himself left. On 7 December 1945 the President of the Commonwealth of Philippines issued your Administrative Order No.27 in which under certain conditions the payment of gratuities to officers and employees of the national government that had been in active service on December 8, 1941 were available, whether or not called to take back to their positions after release. This Administrative Order by the President "was issued under the authority conferred by my existing law (it alludes to the emergency powers) and to carry out the recommendations of the Joint Committee established under Resolution No. 5 of Congress Philippines adopted on July 28, 1945. " Before December 7, ie the 4th of that month, since the appellant had sent a request to the Auditor General, accompanied by the relevant documents that supported it, exposing the ciicunstancia its relationship with the late John M. Cuevas and ulla relationship relict this property, including certain amounts of money with the Government, the Philippine National Bank and Postal Savings Bank, and consequently asking "that the designate as the missus more next to enable it to receive without delay any amount that was due to her dead son.... " Cocadiz Florence, the divorced wife has no company officially peared before the Auditor General, nor has presented any instance. The Xpediente shows that initially the Auditor General Delegate raised the matter in consultation with the Department of Justice seeking to obtain an opinion, among other things, whether "the divorced wife mentioned here has any right to gratification or gratuity to which the deceased husband or intestate is acreedo And Administrative Order No. 27 dated December 7, 1945, whereas this sratlvity is equivalent to its suel two corresponding to ios months of January and February, 1942. "The Department of Justice refused to issue the requested review, among other reasons because the request concerns a hypothetical case, considering that there was no conflict of claims, as cralaw virtua1aw library

cralaw virtua1aw library

the wife divociada was not complaining, not HAVlNG instance more than that presented by Balbina Mendoza, Mother survivor. Later - March 12, 1946 - the Auditor General Delegate, evidently making use of the power under Article 262 of the Administrative Code, resolved on your Balbina instance Mendoza, dictating the following error: "Memorandum for Auditor Pedro Rivera "Central office "As the gratuity of the late John M. Cuevas under Administrative Order No. 27, dated December July 1945, Corresponds to His salary for the months of January and February, 1942 , During Which His marriage in 1932 Cocadiz With Florence was not yet Dissolved, the decree of Their divorce Having Been issued by the Court of First Instance of Batangas only on March 21, 1944, the gratuity Said Should be Deemed to be a part of Their conjugal estate. Only one half thereof may, THEREFORE be paid to surviving His mother, the claimant HEREIN, lowest Hereby is designated as His next of kin, the other half Being payable to His divorced wife as her share. jgc:

chanrobles.com .ph

(Sgd.) "JUAN CONCON "Deputy Auditor General" In this ruling the petitioner has timely filed his appeal, which we now proceed to decide. The Attorney General, in his brief filed in the name and behalf of the Government, raises the contention between the parties in the following summary, made with appropriate brevity and fairness : "The question raised by the appellant is whether the gratification (gratuity) payable to the deceased Juan Cuevas under Administrative Order No. 27 dated December 7, 1945, belongs to the vacant inheritance, or if such gratuity should be considered perticiente to marital property of the deceased and his wife divorced Government, itself, has no interest in the matter;. supports the obligation to pay the gratuity and is willing to do to whom it is declared eligible . to it "The appellant argues that Addministrativa Order No. 27, to arrange payment dde gratuities, use this vovablo and not another; that gratuity is sinomina or equivalent freely given gift or present; that the consideration paid in such Administrative Ordden only have become due and payable desdde its promulgation; and therefore, the right of deceased Cuevas reciber such gratuities to stay effective long after the derecto have remained firm for which he is divorcing his wife. After mature deliberation, this representation feels compelled, for the reasons given by the appellant and other later will be present, to give their adhesion to the view that the gratuities in question must belong to the vacant inheritance of the deceased Cuevas. "(Case Attorney General, pages 2 and 3.) We judged successful and arranged to right concluciones appraisals and Attorney General. The bonuses or gratuities dde question must be governed by the law which provides, that is, by Order Administrative No. 27 having character and force of law under emergency powers granted by the Legislature President Philippines to root dae dae war, sane with the Constitution. The article 1090 of the Civil Code precentua that "the obligations the law does not presume. Are enforceable only those expressly set forth in this Code or in special laws, and shall be governed by the precept of the law which has established; . . . . " Now that Order Management uses the word gratuity having a known, categorical and conclusive in law and jurisprudence significance. The government has issued together that gratuity is not to wages, salary, or any other emolument. It means gift, prize, present, something given and received by lucrative title. In this case more accentuated the difference between the two concepts, considering that Congress, in its Joint Resolution No. 5 adopted on 28 July 1945, recommended studying "ways and means to pay the back salaries, gratuities, bonuses or other emoluments of the loyal and deserving employees of the Commonwealth. . . . "The fact therefore that the escogiel-a President's term gratuity, leaving aside other revocable, indicates that this is a calculated concession, clearly shows the intention to strictly limit the scope of the privilege to the letter . of the law When there is no ambiguity in the phraseology of the law, the function is necessarily literalist, ministerial -.... does not have to do subtleties and deductions, playing with concepts like the juggler with his cups Lo expressed by the Auditor in its opinion that the gratuity in question corresponds to the salaries of Cuevas for the months of January and February 1942 and that, therefore, the divorced wife is entitled to half because at that time the spouses no were even legally divorced, has absolutely no foundation, for there is nothing in Administrative Order No. 27 which says that gratuities it granted correspond specifically to the months referred The terms of the arrangement are as follows:. "The gratuities HEREIN Authorized Shall be equivalent to two months' basic salary at the rates whos Received on December 8, 1941. "It is clear that the phrase" two months "is here placed only for purposes of computation or determination of the amount of the gratuity, and the same may correspond to any two months of 1942, 1943 in June 1944, and two other any month of the year 1945, after already liberation. It seems superfluous to say that the decision in this case has nothing to do with the question of whether officials and Commonwealth Government employees in active service at the outbreak of war had passed or not entitled to back pay (back wages), have not served during the enemy occupation, or the other question of whether the Gobrierno of the Republic is or is not required to pay them such salaries. None of these issues is before us. For determination and resuluci. In merits of the foregoing, the appeal dectamen object is modified and declares that the appellant is entitled to the full amount of the gratuity belonging to the late John M. Cuevas , subject of course to any valid claim against the estate of said deceased relict low as legal provisions for goods dead. No costs. Asi. Is ordered Moran, Pres., Fair, Paul, Perfect, Bengzon, Padilla and Tuason, JJ., concur. jgc: chanroble s.com.ph

cralaw virtua1aw library