PRIMITIVO ANSAY, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

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 the following order:

”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 sec 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.

Appellants contend that there exists a cause of action in their
complaint because their claim rests on moral grounds or what in brief
is denned by law as a natural obligation.

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 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.

At this point, we would like to reiterate what we said in the case of Philippine Education Co. vs. CIR and the Union of Philippine Education Co., Employees (NUL) (92 Phil., 381; 48 Off. Gaz., 5278) —

* * * * * * *

“From
the legal point of view a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable
obligation. It is so when it is made a part of the wage or salary
compensation.”

And while it is true that the subsequent case of H. E. Heacock vs. National Labor Union, et al., 95 Phil, 553; 50 Off. Gaz., 4253, we stated that:

“Even if a bonus is not demandable for not forming
part of the wage, salary or compensation of an employee, the same may
nevertheless, be granted on equitable consideration as when it was
given in the past, though withheld in succeeding two years from low
salaried employees due to salary increases.”

still the facts in said Heacock case are not the same as in the
instant one, and hence the ruling applied in said case cannot be
considered in the present action.

Premises considered, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.