Mendoza vs. Dizon

Balbina Mendoza vs. Paciano DizonFacts: It covers the file on the application filed on the request submitted originally before the Court by Balbina Mendoza, appellant,in which the Assembly requested that, under the faculty which conferson us the rule 45 of the Rules of the Courts.In 1932 Cuevas married Florence Cocadiz. This marriage was definitively dissolved on march 21,1944 by virtue of a decree divorce issued by the Court of First Instance in Batangas on that date.There was no offspring.In December 7, 1945 the President of the Philippines of Commonwealth issued AdministrativeOrder No. 27 in which under certain conditions is available to the bonuses or gratuities to officialsand employees of the Government National who had been in active service in December 8, 1941,have been or not called to return to their jobs after the liberation.Later - 12 March 1946 - the Auditor General Delegate, making use of course powers conferred onit by article 262 of the Administrative Code, solved the substance of the instance of BalbinaMendoza, dictating the following judgment:As the gratuity of the late Juan M. Cuevas under Administrative Order No. 27, dated December 7,1945, corresponds to his salary for the months of January and February, 1942, during which hismarriage with Florencia Cocadiz in 1932 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 said gratuityshould be deemed to be a part of their conjugal estate. Only one-half thereof may, therefore, be paid to his surviving mother, the herein claimant, who is hereby designated as his next of kin, theother half being payable to his divorced wife as her share. Issue: Whether such gratuity should be considered as goods belonging to the acquisitions of the deceasedand his wife divorced Held: Bonuses or gratuitiesshould governed the concerned that the law provides, that is, by Order No.27 administrator had

character and strength under the emergency powers granted by theLegislature to the President of the Philippines in the wake of war, according to the Constitution. However, the said Order Management uses the word gratuity that has a meaning known,categorical and conclusive on the law and jurisprudence. Provide for a rapid authority of gratuityas an equivalent and not salary, wages or other remuneration. It means gift, award, present,something that is given and received by lucrative title. In this case the difference accentuate thetwo concepts when one considers 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 CommonwealthOn merits of the above, amending appeal subject to the opinion and states that the appellant hasreceive the total amount of the gratuity belongs to the deceased John M. Cuevas, subject of courseto any valid claim against the property of the deceased under the laws on good of the dead. Nocharge. Zulueta VS PAN-AM 43 SCRA 397 (1972) Facts of the Case: Zulueta was a passenger on a PAN-AM flight with his wife and children from San Francisco to Manila. On a stopover at Wake Island, the passengers were allowed to disembark but were told that the plane would leave in 30 minutes. After 30 minutes, Zulueta failed to show up because he had to go to the toilet. The airline staff had to look for him. When he was found, the plane Captain reprimanded him rudely, and one of the airline personnel referred to the Zuluetas as “brown monkeys”. Zulueta answered back and a bitter exchange followed. The captain got angry and ordered the

staff to unload Zulueta’s baggage, and he was left behind.

Held: The Supreme Court awarded 500,000.00 pesos as moral

Upon reaching Manila, Zulueta filed an action to recover moral

damages and 50,000.00 as attorney’s fees for the harsh

damages.

treatment of Zulueta. The Complete Cabin Crew Guide E-Book