MENDOZA V. DIZON (RAM) 2. In 1932, Cuevas married Florence Cocadiz.
However, they divorced in 1944
October 25, 1946 | Briones, M.| Gratuities/Early case about the application of an AO
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Balbina Mendoza
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Paciano Dizon, in his capacity as Auditor
General, Messrs. Eulalio Chaves and Eugene P. La Rosa in representation of the
appellant, Mr. Assistant Attorney General and the Attorney Alvendza Mr.
Carreon
SUMMARY: Juan M. Cuevas, an auditor in the Province of Ilocos Sur, is the
legitimate child of Balbina Mendoza. In 1932, Cuevas married Florence
Cocadiz. However, they divorced in 1944. They had no offspring. Cuevas died
and Mendoza was the nearest relative to the deceased. In December 1945, AO
No. 27 was issued which granted bonuses or gratuities to officials and employees
of the government. Mendoza presented documents to Auditor General Dizon to
show that she is the nearest relative in order to get the money that should’ve
gone to her deceased son. The Auditor General then decided that since the
gratuity of Cuevas consisted of his salary for January and February 1942, the
money should be part of the conjugal estate of Cuevas and Cocadiz, since at that
time, Cuevas was still married to Cocadiz. Their marriage was not yet dissolved
and the decree of their divorce was only issued on March 21, 1944. The Auditor
General held that half of the money should go to Mendoza and half to Cocadiz.
The issue in this case is WoN the gratuity payable to Cuevas belongs to his
vacant inheritance or be considered goods belonging the acquisitions of the
deceased and his wife? The SC held that the gratuity should go to Mendoza. The
term gratuity was deliberately used in AO 27. The use of such term shows the
intention to limit the scope of the privilege strictly to the letter of the law. When
there is no ambiguity in the phraseology of the law then it must be taken
literally. The terms in AO 27 clearly meant to be for purposes of computation to
determine the amount of the gratuity. Gratuity does not correspond to salaries.
Hence, the gratuities should go to Cuevas’ nearest kin, Mendoza.
DOCTRINE: Gratuity as a concept means gift, prize, present, something given
and received by lucrative title. It is different from wages, salary or any other
emolument.
NOTE: Case is under Origin and Development of Administrative Law –
Recognition as a Distinct Category of Law: Due to the rapid expansion of
administrative agencies and their increased functions, a substantial body of
jurisprudence has developed in the field and general recognition has been given
to ADMINISTRATIVE LAW as a distinct category of law
FACTS:
1. Juan M. Cuevas, an auditor in the Province of Ilocos Sur, is the legitimate
child of Balbina Mendoza.
issued by the CFI in Batangas. They had no offspring.
3. Cuevas died and Mendoza was the nearest relative to the deceased.
4. In December 1945, the President of the Philippine Commonwealth issued
Administrative Order No. 27. The AO provided that officials and
employees of the national government who had been in active service in
“December 8, 1941, have been or not called to return to their jobs after their
liberation” would get bonuses or gratuities.
5. Mendoza presented documents to Auditor General Dizon to show that she is
the nearest relative in order to get the money that should’ve gone to her
deceased son. At this point, Cocadiz had not appeared officially before
Dizon.
6. Dizon sought the opinion of the Justice Department, “on whether the
divorced wife referred to here has any right to the gratuity of the deceased
husband under the AO, considering that the gratuity is equivalent to the
salaries for the months of January and February, 1942”.
7. The Auditor General then decided that since the gratuity of Cuevas
consisted of his salary for January and February 1942, the money should
be part of the conjugal estate of Cuevas and Cocadiz, since at that time,
Cuevas was still married to Cocadiz. Their marriage was not yet dissolved
and the decree of their divorce was only issued on March 21, 1944.
8. The Auditor General held that half of the money should go to Mendoza and
half to Cocadiz.
9. Mendoza appealed.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the gratuity payable to Cuevas belongs to his vacant inheritance or be
considered goods belonging the acquisitions of the deceased and his wife? –
VACANT INHERITANCE aka everything should go to Mendoza
HELD: Balbina Mendoza, the appellant is entitled to the total amount of the gratuity
of the deceased John M. Cuevas.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Gratuity means gift, award, present, something that is given and received by
lucrative title. It is different from wages, salary or any other emolument.
2. The term gratuity was deliberately used in AO 27. The use of such term
shows the intention to limit the scope of the privilege strictly to the letter of
the law. When there is no ambiguity in the phraseology of the law then it
must be taken literally.
3. The Auditor General’s earlier decision claiming that the divorced wife is
entitled to half of the money because the spouses were not even legally
divorced at the time has absolutely no foundation. There is nothing in AO
27 that says gratuities are specifically granted to the months previously
mentioned.
4. The terms in AO 27 states that:
 a. The gratuities herein shall be authorized equivalent to two months
basic salary at the rates received on December 8 1941.
5. This was clearly meant to be for purposes of computation to determine the
amount of the gratuity.
6. Gratuity does not correspond to salaries.
7. The Commonwealth Government is not concerned about back wages during
the war in this case.
8. Hence, the SC decided that Mendoza should get the total amount of the
gratuity, subject to any valid claim against the property of the deceased.