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 ssembly requested that, under the faculty! which confers on us the rule "# of the $ules of the Courts, let us loo% 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 &uan M. Cuevas, legitimate child of the appellant. 'n ()*+ Cuevas married ,lorence Cocadiz. -his marriage was definitively dissolved on march +(, ()"" by virtue of a decree divorce issued by the Court of ,irst 'nstance in Batangas on that date. -here was no offspring. 't is not disputed that Balbina Mendoza, the appellant, it is the %inswoman .nearest relative/ to the deceased and, therefore, with the right to pass, to the e0clusion of the brothers and nephews that he himself has left it. 'n December 1, ()"# the President of the Philippines of Commonwealth issued dministrative 2rder 3o. +1 in which under certain conditions is available to the bonuses or gratuities to officials and employees of the 4overnment 3ational who had been in active service in December 5, ()"(, have been or not called to return to their 6obs after the liberation.-he dministrative 2rder was issued by the President 78irtue of the authority to my conferred by the e0isting law .referred to the emergency powers/ and to carry out the recommendations of the Committee established under the &oint $esolution 3o. # -he Congress of the Philippines "19++: adopted &uly +5, ()"#.7 chanrobles virtual law library Before December 1, or " of the month, because the appellant had directed an instance to the uditor 4eneral, accompanied by the corresponding documents that the claimed,stating the circumstances of their %inship with the deceased &uan M. Cuevas and a list of the estates of this, including certain amounts of money in power of the 4overnment, the Banco ,ilipino national and of the Ban%!s Postal ;avings, and as%ing for accordingly 7 't is designated as the %inswoman nearest in order to enable terms receive without delay any amount that is due to her deceased son. . . .7 chanrobles virtual law library ,lorence Cocadiz, divorced wife, has not appeared officially before the uditor 4eneral, nor has it presented any instance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library -he record demonstrates that at the beginning the uditor 4eneral Delegate raised the issue in consultation to the &ustice Department to see% an opinion, among other points, on whether 7the divorced wife referred to here has any right to the gratification or gratuity to the deceased husband under the dministrative 2rder 3o. +1 Dated December 1, ()"#, considering that the gratuity is equivalent to their salaries for the months of &anuary and ,ebruary, ()"+. <-he Department of &ustice give the requested opinion, among other reasons because the query related to a hypothetical case, ta%ing 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 >ater ? (+ March ()": ? the uditor 4eneral Delegate, ma%ing use of course powers conferred on it by article +:+ of the dministrative Code, solved the substance of the instance of Balbina Mendoza, dictating the following 6udgment@ chanrobles virtual law library

Memorandum for uditor Pedro $ivera Central office chanrobles virtual law library s the gratuity of the late &uan M. Cuevas under dministrative 2rder 3o. +1, dated December 1, ()"#, corresponds to his salary for the months of &anuary and ,ebruary, ()"+, during which his marriage with ,lorencia Cocadiz in ()*+ was not yet dissolved, the decree of their divorce having been issued by the Court of ,irst 'nstance of Batangas only on March +(, ()"", the said gratuity should be deemed to be a part of their con6ugal estate. 2nly one?half thereof may, therefore, be paid to his surviving mother, the herein claimant, who is hereby designated as his ne0t of %in, the other half being payable to his divorced wife as her share. .;gd./ &uan Concon Deputy Auditor General 'n this ruling, the petitioner timely filed his appeal, which we now proceed to decide. -he ttorney 4eneral, in his brief filed on behalf of the 4overnment commission raises the complaints between the parties in the following summary, made with appropriate brevity and fairness@ -he question raised by the appellant is whether the reward .gratuity/ payable to the decedent &un Cuevas under dministrative 2rder 3o. +1 dated December 1, ()"#, 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. -he 4overnment, 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. -he appellant argues that the dministrative 2rder 3o. +1, 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 dministrative 2rder 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. fter mature deliberation, this representation is felt compelled, for the reasons given by the appellant and others that later will be e0posed, 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 ttorney 4eneral, pages + and *./. lawphil.net Ae 6udge according to law successful and the findings and conclusions of the ttorney 4eneral.

Bonuses or gratuities should governed the concerned that the law provides, that is, by 2rder 3o. +1 administrator had character and strength under the emergency powers granted by the >egislature to the President of the Philippines in the wa%e of war, according to the Constitution. rticle (B)B of Civil Code stipulates that 7the law obligations are not presumed. 't s enforceable only those e0pressly set forth in this Code or in law special and shall governed by the precepts of the law that established there,.... 7 Cowever, the said 2rder Management uses the word gratuity that has a meaning %nown, categorical and conclusive on the law and 6urisprudence. Provide for a rapid authority of gratuity as an equivalent and not salary, wages or other remuneration. 't means gift, award, present, something that is given and received by lucrative title. 'n this case the difference accentuate the two concepts when one considers that Congress, in its &oint $esolution 3o. # adopted on &uly +5, ()"#, recommended the study of 7ways and means to pay the bac% salaries, gratuities, bonuses or other emoluments of the loyal and deserving employees of the Commonwealth.... 7 -he 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. Ahen no ambiguity in the phraseology of the law, the 6udicial function is necessarily literalist, ministerial ? does not have to ma%e subtle and deductions, playing with concepts such as the minstrel with its cups. . . . Ahat was said by the auditor!s opinion on reviving gratuity in question corresponds to Cuevas salaries for the months of &anuary and ,ebruary ()"+ 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 dministrative 2rder 3o. +1 to say that gratuities are specifically granted therein to the months mentioned. -he terms of the arrangement are as follows@ 7-he gratuities herein ;hall Be uthorized equivalent to two months! basic salary at the rates received on December 5 ctually, ()"(. 7't is clear that the phrase 7two months7 is placed here for purposes of computation or quantity in determination of the gratuity, and so may correspond to + months. ()"+, ()"* or ()"", as any other + months ()"#, and after of liberation. 't seems superfluous to say that the decision in the said case has nothing to do with the question of whether officials and Commonwealth 4overnment employees in active service at the outbrea% of war had passed or back wages, whether or not during enemy occupation, or the other questions if the 4overnment of the $epublic or not you pay such salary obligations, none of these issues before us can have the determination and resolution. 2n merits of the above, amending appeal sub6ect to the opinion and states that the appellant has receive the total amount of the gratuity belongs to the deceased&ohn M. Cuevas, sub6ect of course to any valid claim against the property of the deceased under the laws on good of the dead. 3o charge. ;o ordered. Moran, CJ, Fair, Paul, Perfect, eng!on, "uason Padilla, JJ., Concur.