Mendoza vs Dizon

Balbina Mendoza vs. Paciano Dizon Covers the file on the application filed on the request submitted originally before this Court by Balbina Mendoza, appellant,in which the Assembly requested that, under the faculty' which confers on us the rule 45 of the Rules of the Courts, let us look at the opinion issued by the hall resorted Paciano Dizon in his concept of auditor general, in the case of the gratification or gratuity of the deceased Juan M. Cuevas, legitimate child of the appellant. 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. It is not disputed that Balbina Mendoza, the appellant, it is the kinswoman (nearest relative) to the deceased and, therefore, with the right to pass, to the exclusion of the brothers and nephews that he himself has left it. In December 7, 1945 the President of the Philippines of Commonwealth issued Administrative Order No. 27 in which under certain conditions is available to the bonuses or gratuities to officials and 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.The Administrative Order was issued by the President "Virtue of the authority to my conferred by the existing law (referred to the emergency powers) and to carry out the recommendations of the Committee established under the Joint Resolution No. 5 The Congress of the Philippines 47/226 adopted July 28, 1945." chanrobles virtual law library Before December 7, or 4 of the month, because the appellant had directed an instance to the Auditor General, accompanied by the corresponding documents that the claimed,stating the circumstances of their kinship with the deceased Juan M. Cuevas and a list of the estates of this, including certain amounts of money in power of the Government, the Banco Filipino national and of the Bank's Postal Savings, and asking for accordingly " It is designated as the kinswoman nearest in order to enable terms receive without delay any amount that is due to her deceased son. . . ." chanrobles virtual law library Florence Cocadiz, divorced wife, has not appeared officially before the Auditor General, nor has it presented any instance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The record demonstrates that at the beginning the Auditor General Delegate raised the issue in consultation to the Justice Department to seek an opinion, among other points, on whether "the divorced wife referred to here has any right to the gratification or gratuity to the deceased husband under the Administrative Order No. 27 Dated December 7, 1945, considering that the gratuity is equivalent to their salaries for the months of January and February, 1942. “The Department of Justice give the requested opinion, among other reasons because the query related to a hypothetical case, taking into account that there was no conflict of reclamations, because the divorced wife was not a claimant, not having more instance than the one submitted by Balbina Mendoza, the mother survivor.”w library Later - 12 March 1946 - the Auditor General Delegate, making use of course powers conferred on it by article 262 of the Administrative Code, solved the substance of the instance of Balbina Mendoza, dictating the following judgment: chanrobles virtual law library

Memorandum for Auditor Pedro Rivera Central office chanrobles virtual law library 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 his marriage 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 gratuity should 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, the other half being payable to his divorced wife as her share. (Sgd.) Juan Concon Deputy Auditor General In this ruling, the petitioner timely filed his appeal, which we now proceed to decide. The Attorney General, in his brief filed on behalf of the Government commission raises the complaints between the parties in the following summary, made with appropriate brevity and fairness: The question raised by the appellant is whether the reward (gratuity) payable to the decedent Jun Cuevas under Administrative Order No. 27 dated December 7, 1945, belongs to his vacant inheritance, or whether such gratuity should be considered as goods belonging to the acquisitions of the deceased and his wife divorced. The Government, itself, has no interest in the issue, supports the obligation to pay the gratuity and is willing to do it that is declared entitled to them. The appellant argues that the Administrative Order No. 27, the payment of gratuities disponerel, use this word and not another, that gratuity is synonymous or equivalent freely given gift or present, that the consideration paid in this Administrative Order only become enforceable and payable from its enactment, and that therefore the deceased's right to receive such gratuities Caves remain effective long after having become final decree by which divorce from his wife. After mature deliberation, this representation is felt compelled, for the reasons given by the appellant and others that later will be exposed, to give their adhesion to the view that the gratuities as an issue must belong to the heritage and tone of the late Cuevas . (Case of the Attorney General, pages 2 and 3.). lawphil.net We judge according to law successful and the findings and conclusions of the Attorney General.

Bonuses or gratuities should governed the concerned that the law provides, that is, by Order No. 27 administrator had character and strength under the emergency powers granted by the Legislature to the President of the Philippines in the wake of war, according to the Constitution. Article 1090 of Civil Code stipulates that "the law obligations are not presumed. It s enforceable only those expressly set forth in this Code or in law special and shall governed by the precepts of the law that established there,.... " 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 gratuity as 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 the two 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 Commonwealth.... " The fact, therefore, that the President chose the term gratuity , leaving completely the other words, it indicates that a concession is well calculated, clearly shows the intention to limit the scope of the privilege strictly to the letter of the law. When no ambiguity in the phraseology of the law, the judicial function is necessarily literalist, ministerial - does not have to make subtle and deductions, playing with concepts such as the minstrel with its cups. . . . What was said by the auditor's opinion on reviving gratuity in question corresponds to Cuevas salaries for the months of January and February 1942 and, bearing, the divorced wife is entitled to half the time because the spouses were not even legally divorced, has absolutely no foundation, for there is nothing in Administrative Order No. 27 to say that gratuities are specifically granted therein to the months mentioned. The terms of the arrangement are as follows: "The gratuities herein Shall Be Authorized equivalent to two months' basic salary at the rates received on December 8 Actually, 1941. "It is clear that the phrase "two months" is placed here for purposes of computation or quantity in determination of the gratuity, and so may correspond to 2 months. 1942, 1943 or 1944, as any other 2 months 1945, and after of liberation. It seems superfluous to say that the decision in the said 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 back wages, whether or not during enemy occupation, or the other questions if the Government of the Republic or not you pay such salary obligations, none of these issues before us can have the determination and resolution. On merits of the above, amending appeal subject to the opinion and states that the appellant has receive the total amount of the gratuity belongs to the deceasedJohn M. Cuevas, subject of course to any valid claim against the property of the deceased under the laws on good of the dead. No charge. So ordered. Moran, CJ, Fair, Paul, Perfect, Bengzon, Tuason Padilla, JJ., Concur.