Primitivo Ansay, etc., et al. vs. The
Board of Directors of National Development Company, et al.
G.R. No.
L-13667. April 29, 1960.
Facts:
On July 25, 1956,
appellants filed against appellees in the Court of First Instance of Manila a
complaint praying for a 20% Christmas bonus for the years 1954 and 1955. The
court a quo on appellees' motion to dismiss, issued that “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 although the court waited for
sometime for them; considering, however, that petitioners have submitted an
opposition which the court will consider together with the arguments presented
by respondents and the Exhibits marked and presented, namely, Exhibits 1 to 5,
at the hearing of the motion to dismiss; considering that the action in brief
is one to compel respondents to declare a Christmas bonus for petitioners
workers in the National Development Company; considering that the Court does
not see how petitioners may have a cause of action to secure such bonus
because:
"(a)A bonus is
an act of liberality and the court takes it that it is not within its judicial
powers to command respondents to be liberal;
"(b)Petitioners
admit that respondents are not under legal duty to give such bonus but that
they had only ask that such bonus be given to them because it is a moral
obligation of respondents to give that but as this Court understands, it has no
power to compel a party to comply with a moral obligation (Art. 142, New Civil
Code).
"IN VIEW WHEREOF, dismissed.
No pronouncement as to costs."
A motion for reconsideration
of the afore-quoted order was denied. Hence this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the contention of the appellants that
there exists a cause of action in their complaint because their claim rests on
moral grounds or what in brief is defined by law as a natural obligation.
Held:
No. 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,
the Supreme Court feels it urgent to reproduce at this point, the definition
and meaning of natural obligation.
Article 1423 of the New Civil
Code classifies obligations into civil or natural. "Civil obligations are
a right of action to compel their performance. Natural obligations, not being
based on positive law but on equity and natural law, do not grant a right of
action to enforce their performance, but after voluntary fulfillment by the
obligor, they authorize the retention of what has been delivered or rendered by
reason thereof"
It is thus readily seen that
an element of natural obligation before it can be cognizable by the court is
voluntary fulfillment by the obligor. Certainly retention can be ordered but
only after there has been voluntary performance. But here there has been no
voluntary performance. In fact, the court cannot order the performance.