C I V R E V.

P E R S O N S

MENDOZA vs DIZON

(CASE DIGEST)

1. This case covers an application filed on the request submitted originally

before the Court by BALBINA MENDOZA, appellant, in which the Assembly
requested that under Rule 45 of Rules of Court.
2. In 1932 JUAN M. CUEVAS married FLORENCE CICADIZ, this marriage
was dissolved on March 21, 1944 by virtue of a decree of divorce issued by
the CFI of Batangas on the said date. They begot no children on the said
marriage.
3. On December 7, 1945 the President of the Philippines issued
Administrative Order No. 27 in which under certain conditions were made
available to the bonuses or gratuities to officials and employees of the
National Government who had been in active service since December 8,
1941, have been or not called to return to their jobs after the liberation.
4. Later, on March 12, 1946, the Deputy Auditor General, making use of
the powers conferred on it by Art. 262 of the Administrative Code, solved
the substance of the instance of BALBINA MENDOZA dictating the following
judgment:
As to the gratuity of the late JUAN M. CUEVAS under AO No. 27
DATED December 7, 1945, corresponds to his salary for the months of
January and February 1942, during which his marriage with FLORENCE
COCADIZ in 1932 was not yet dissolved, the decree of their divorce having
been issued by the CFI Batangas only on March 21, 1944, the said gratuity
should be deemed to be part of the conjugal estate. Only thereof may
therefore be paid to his surviving mother, the herein claimant, who is
hereby designated as his next of kin, the other half payable to his divorced
wife as his share.
ISSUE: WON SUCH GRATUITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS GOODS
BELONGING TO THE CONJUGAL ESTATE. NO, exclusive property of
deceased JUAN M. CUEVAS.
5. Bonuses or gratuities should be governed by AO No. 27 under the
emergency powers granted by the legislative to the President in the wake
of the war, according to the Constitution. However, said Order uses the
word gratuity: an equivalent and not salary, wages or other remuneration.
It means gift, award, present, something that is given and received by the
lucrative title.
6. On the merits of the above, appellant receives the total amount of the
gratuity belonging to the deceased JUAN M. CUEVAS, subject to any valid
claim against the property of the deceased.

(FULLTEXT TRANSLATED FROM SPANISH TO ENGLISH)

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:

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

C I V R E V. P E R S O N S

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.

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.

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. "

(Sgd.) "JUAN CONCON "Deputy Auditor General"

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 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

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 : jgc:
chanrobles.com.ph "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,

C I V R E V. P E R S O N S

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.