Logronio v. United States

133 F. Supp. 395, 132 Ct. Cl. 596, 1955 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 159
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 12, 1955
Docket354-54
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 133 F. Supp. 395 (Logronio v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Logronio v. United States, 133 F. Supp. 395, 132 Ct. Cl. 596, 1955 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 159 (cc 1955).

Opinions

WHITAKER, Judge.

Plaintiff’s claim is for pay he claims is due him as an officer in the Philippine Army. His claim covers three periods: (1) from December 18, 1941 to April 8, 1942; (2) from April 8, 1942 to September 9, 1943; and (3) from September 9, 1943 to March 31, 1945. Except for the second period, he has been paid by the Army of the Philippines under the Missing Persons Act of the Congress of the United States, Act of March 7, 1942, 56 Stat. 143, as amended, section 1001 et seq., Title 50 Ü.S.C.A.Appendix. His complaint is that he was given the pay of a sergeant, whereas he alleges he was a first lieutenant from December 18, 1941 to March 31, 1945, and he sues for the difference in pay and allowances.

For the second period, from April ■ 8, 1942 to September 9, 1943, he was'found to be in a “no casualty status,” and, therefore, not entitled to any benefits under the Missing Persons Act for this period. He sues for his full pay and allowances for this period.

It appears that plaintiff was a member of the Philippine Army, but presumably his suit is against the United States and not the Philippines, although his petition does not so state. He prays for judgment “ordering the payment” of the amounts he claims, but he does not state against whom he desires judgment. We shall assume, however, he is asking judgment against the United States.

Although a member of the Philippine Army, plaintiff is entitled to claim the benefits- of the Missing Persons Act passed by the Congress of the United States, supra. The Appropriation Act of February 18, 1946, 60 Stat. 6, 14, 38 U.S.C.A. § 38 appropriated $200,000,000 for the Army of the Philippines, but with the following provisos:

“Army of the Philippines, $200,-000,000: Provided, That service in the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, while such forces were in the service of the armed forces of the United States pursuant to the military order of the President of the Unite_d States dated July 26, 1941, shall not be deemed to be or to have been service in the military or naval forces of the United States or any component thereof for the purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon any person by reason of the service of such person or the service of any other person in the military or naval forces of the United States or any component thereof, except benefits under (1) the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, under contracts heretofore entered into, and (2) laws administered by the Veterans’ Administration providing for the payment of pensions on account of service-connected disability or death: Provided further, That such pensions shall be paid at the rate of one' Philippine peso for each dollar authorized to be paid under the laws providing for such pensions: Provided further, That any payments heretofore made under any such law to or with respect to any member of the military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines who served in the service of the armed forces of the United States shall not be deemed to be invalid by reason of the-circumstances that his service was not service in the military or naval forces of the United States or any component thereof within the meaning of such law.”

On July 25, 1947, the foregoing Act was amended, 61 Stat. 455, by adding the following at the conclusion thereof: “and (3) the Missing Persons Act, approved March 7, 1942 (56 Stat. 143), as amended.”

[397]*397However, plaintiff is not entitled to recover under the Missing Persons Act, as amended, supra, if for no other reason, because section 9 thereof, sec. 1009 of Title 50 App. U.S.C.A. provides: “The head of the department concerned, or such subordinate as he may designate, shall have authority to make all determinations necessary in the administration of this Act, and for the purposes of this Act determinations so made shall be conclusive as to death or finding of death, as to any other status dealt with by this Act, and as to * * *. ” Then later the section provides again: “Determinations are authorized to be made by the head of the department concerned, or by such subordinate as he may designate, of entitlement of any person, under provisions of this Act, to pay and allowances, including credits and charges in his account, and all such determinations shall be conclusive * * *. ”

The determination has been made by the authorized representative of the head of the department concerned, and we plainly have no jurisdiction to alter it. Moreno v. United States, 93 F.Supp. 607, 118 Ct.Cl. 30, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 814, 72 S.Ct. 29, 96 L.Ed. 616.

Plaintiff’s claim for pay and allowances while he was a member of a guerrilla unit stands on an entirely different'basis. Plaintiff’s petition does not allege that the unit of which he was a member had been recognized by the Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, as required by the order of Mr. Osmena, President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, hereafter quoted in part; but even if his unit had been so recognized, we are of opinion that the members thereof have no claim against the United States for pay and allowances. Eecognized or not, they never became members of the Army of the United States, and are not entitled to the pay and allowances of such members, nor were they authorized to bind the United States in any respect. Upon recognition by the Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, they did become members of the Philippine Army, pursuant to Executive Order No. 21, issued by Mr. Osmena, President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, on October 28, 1944; but the Philippine Army never became a part of the Army of the United States.

We so held in our first opinion in the case of Victorio v. United States, Ct.Cl., 91 F.Supp. 748. On a motion for a rehearing, we concluded, mainly because of the provisions of the Act of January 26, 1918, 40 Stat. 432, 32 U.S.C.A. § 84, that the Philippine Army did become a part of the Army of the United States, including members of recognized guerrilla units. 106 F.Supp. 182, 122 Ct.Cl. 708. However, we have reexamined the question and now conclude that the Act of January 26, 1918, had no application to the conditions existing in 1941, that the call of the Philippine Army “into the service of the armed forces of the United- States” by President Eoosevelt on July 26, 1941, did not give to the members of the Philippine Army the status of members of the Army of the United States.

We think we erred in our opinion on motion for a rehearing in the Victorio case, supra, decided July 15, 1952, and that decision is overruled.

The Act of January 26, 1918, was passed when the Philippines were a territorial possession of the United States, acquired by it from Spain under the Treaty of 1898, 30 Stat. 1754. The chief executive officer of the Philippines was a Governor General appointed by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its Supreme Court was appointed by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the United States Senate. It had its own. Legislature, but this Legislature could pass no law in conflict with the Constitution of the United States nor with any Act of Congress. It was, therefore, entirely logical at that time for Congress to enact, as it did in the Act of January 26, 1918, supra, that all members of the militia “and other local[398]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Midgett v. United States
603 F.2d 835 (Court of Claims, 1979)
In re Naturalization of Escalona
311 F. Supp. 648 (D. Guam, 1970)
Espartero v. United States
152 Ct. Cl. 789 (Court of Claims, 1961)
Alpuerto v. United States
152 Ct. Cl. 270 (Court of Claims, 1961)
Manzanillo v. United States
141 Ct. Cl. 923 (Supreme Court, 1958)
In re Naturalization of Munoz
156 F. Supp. 184 (N.D. California, 1957)
Soriano v. United States
352 U.S. 270 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Soriano
133 Ct. Cl. 971 (Court of Claims, 1955)
Crocker
133 Ct. Cl. 967 (Court of Claims, 1955)
Logronio v. United States
133 F. Supp. 395 (Court of Claims, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 F. Supp. 395, 132 Ct. Cl. 596, 1955 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logronio-v-united-states-cc-1955.