1/24/2016

G.R.No.L13667

TodayisSunday,January24,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L13667April29,1960
PRIMITIVOANSAY,ETC.,ETAL.,plaintiffsappellants,
vs.
THEBOARDOFDIRECTORSOFTHENATIONALDEVELOPMENTCOMPANY,ETAL.,defendantsappellees.
CelsoA.Fernandezforappellants.
JuanC.Jimenez,forappellees.
PARAS,C.J.:
OnJuly25,1956,appellantsfiledagainstappelleesintheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilaacomplaintpraying
fora20%Christmasbonusfortheyears1954and1955.Thecourtaquoonappellees'motiontodismiss,issued
thefollowingorder:
Considering the motion to dismiss filed on 15 August, 1956, set for this morning considering that at the
hearing thereof, only respondents appeared thru counsel and there was no appearance for the plaintiffs
althoughthecourtwaitedforsometimeforthemconsidering,however,thatpetitionershavesubmittedan
opposition which the court will consider together with the arguments presented by respondents and the
Exhibitsmarkedandpresented,namely,Exhibits1to5,atthehearingofthemotiontodismissconsidering
thattheactioninbriefisonetocompelrespondentstodeclareaChristmasbonusforpetitionersworkersin
theNationalDevelopmentCompanyconsideringthattheCourtdoesnotseehowpetitionersmayhavea
causeofactiontosecuresuchbonusbecause:
(a)Abonusisanactofliberalityandthecourttakesitthatitisnotwithinitsjudicialpowerstocommand
respondentstobeliberal
(b)Petitionersadmitthatrespondentsarenotunderlegaldutytogivesuchbonusbutthattheyhadonly
askthatsuchbonusbegiventothembecauseitisamoralobligationofrespondentstogivethatbutasthis
Courtunderstands,ithasnopowertocompelapartytocomplywithamoralobligation(Art.142,NewCivil
Code.).
INVIEWWHEREOF,dismissed.Nopronouncementastocosts.
Amotionforreconsiderationoftheaforequotedorderwasdenied.Hencethisappeal.
Appellants contend that there exists a cause of action in their complaint because their claim rests on moral
groundsorwhatinbriefisdefinedbylawasanaturalobligation.
Since appellants admit that appellees are not under legal obligation to give such claimed bonus that the grant
arises only from a moral obligation or the natural obligation that they discussed in their brief, this Court feels it
urgenttoreproduceatthispoint,thedefinitionandmeaningofnaturalobligation.
Article1423oftheNewCivilCodeclassifiesobligationsintocivilornatural."Civilobligationsarearightofaction
tocompeltheirperformance.Naturalobligations,notbeingbasedonpositivelawbutonequityandnaturallaw,
do not grant a right of action to enforce their performance, but after voluntary fulfillment by the obligor, they
authorizetheretentionofwhathasbeendeliveredorrenderedbyreasonthereof".
Itisthusreadilyseenthatanelementofnaturalobligationbeforeitcanbecognizablebythecourtisvoluntary
fulfillmentbytheobligor.Certainlyretentioncanbeorderedbutonlyaftertherehasbeenvoluntaryperformance.
Butheretherehasbeennovoluntaryperformance.Infact,thecourtcannotordertheperformance.
Atthispoint,wewouldliketoreiteratewhatwesaidinthecaseofPhilippineEducationCo.vs.CIRandtheUnion
ofPhilippineEducationCo.,Employees(NUL)(92Phil.,38148Off.Gaz.,5278)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1960/apr1960/gr_l13667_1960.html

1/2

1/24/2016

G.R.No.L13667

xxxxxxxxx
From the legal point of view a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation. It is so when it is
madeapartofthewageorsalarycompensation.
AndwhileitistruethatthesubsequentcaseofH.E.Heacockvs.NationalLaborUnion,etal.,95Phil.,55350
Off.Gaz.,4253,westatedthat:
Even if a bonus is not demandable for not forming part of the wage, salary or compensation of an
employee,thesamemaynevertheless,begrantedonequitableconsiderationaswhenitwasgiveninthe
past,thoughwithheldinsucceedingtwoyearsfromlowsalariedemployeesduetosalaryincreases.
stillthefactsinsaidHeacockcasearenotthesameasintheinstantone,andhencetherulingappliedinsaid
casecannotbeconsideredinthepresentaction.
Premisesconsidered,theorderappealedfromisherebyaffirmed,withoutpronouncementastocosts.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia Barrera and Gutierrez David,
JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1960/apr1960/gr_l13667_1960.html

2/2