Balbina Mendoza vs.

Paciano DizonFacts:
It covers the file on the application filed on the request
submitted originally before the Court by Balbina Mendoza,
appellant,in which the Assembly requested that, under the
faculty which conferson us the rule 45 of the Rules of the
Courts.In 1932 Cuevas married Florence Cocadiz. This marriage
was definitively dissolved on march 21,1944 by virtue of a
decree divorce issued by the Court of First Instance in Batangas
on that date.There was no offspring.In December 7, 1945 the
President of the Philippines of Commonwealth issued
AdministrativeOrder No. 27 in which under certain conditions is
available to the bonuses or gratuities to officialsand employees
of the Government National who had been in active service in
December 8, 1941,have been or not called to return to their
jobs after the liberation.Later - 12 March 1946 - the Auditor
General Delegate, making use of course powers conferred onit
by article 262 of the Administrative Code, solved the substance
of the instance of BalbinaMendoza, dictating the following
judgment:As the gratuity of the late Juan M. Cuevas under
Administrative Order No. 27, dated December 7,1945,
corresponds to his salary for the months of January and
February, 1942, during which hismarriage with Florencia
Cocadiz in 1932 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 said gratuityshould be
deemed to be a part of their conjugal estate. Only one-half
thereof may, therefore, be paid to his surviving mother, the
herein claimant, who is hereby designated as his next of kin,
theother half being payable to his divorced wife as her share.
Issue: Whether such gratuity should be considered as goods
belonging to the acquisitions of the deceasedand his wife
divorced
Held: Bonuses or gratuitiesshould governed the concerned
that the law provides, that is, by Order No.27 administrator had

character and strength under the emergency powers granted

by theLegislature to the President of the Philippines in the wake
of war, according to the Constitution.
However, the said Order Management uses the word gratuity
that has a meaning known,categorical and conclusive on the
law and jurisprudence. Provide for a rapid authority of
gratuityas an equivalent and not salary, wages or other
remuneration. It means gift, award, present,something that is
given and received by lucrative title. In this case the difference
accentuate thetwo concepts when one considers 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 CommonwealthOn merits of
the above, amending appeal subject to the opinion and states
that the appellant hasreceive the total amount of
the gratuity belongs to the deceased John M. Cuevas, subject
of courseto any valid claim against the property of the
deceased under the laws on good of the dead. Nocharge.
Zulueta VS PAN-AM 43 SCRA 397 (1972)
Facts of the Case: Zulueta was a passenger on a PAN-AM
flight with his wife and children from San Francisco to Manila.
On a stopover at Wake Island, the passengers were allowed to
disembark but were told that the plane would leave in 30
minutes. After 30 minutes, Zulueta failed to show up because
he had to go to the toilet. The airline staff had to look for him.
When he was found, the plane Captain reprimanded him rudely,
and one of the airline personnel referred to the Zuluetas as
brown monkeys. Zulueta answered back and a bitter
exchange followed. The captain got angry and ordered the

staff to unload Zuluetas baggage, and he was left behind.

Held: The Supreme Court awarded 500,000.00 pesos as moral

Upon reaching Manila, Zulueta filed an action to recover moral

damages and 50,000.00 as attorneys fees for the harsh

damages.

treatment of Zulueta.
The Complete Cabin Crew Guide E-Book