MENDOZA V.

DIZON

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.

2. In 1932, Cuevas married Florence Cocadiz. However, they divorced in 1944 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:

5. The gratuities herein shall be authorized to be equivalent to two months basic salary at
the rates received on December 8 1941.

6. This was clearly meant to be for purposes of computation to determine the amount of the
gratuity. 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.

9.