Floresca v. Philex Mining GR L-30642., 30 April 1985 (136 SCRA 142)

Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of this jurisdiction's legal system. These decisions, although in themselves not laws, constitute evidence of what the laws mean.

Floresca v. Philex Mining GR L-30642., 30 April 1985 (136 SCRA 142)

FACTS:

Petitioners are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation (Philex), who, while working at its copper mines underground operations at Tuba, Benguet on June 28, 1967, died as a result of the cave-in that buried them in the tunnels of the mine. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Philex, in violation of government rules and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precautions for the protection of the lives of its men working underground.

Petitioners, with the exception of Floresca, recovered damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, a special committee report on the accident indicated that the respondent company failed to provide adequate safety protection and showed negligence on their part. Subsequently, the petitioners file a civil case in pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code on damages, particularly Articles 2176, 2178, 1173, 2201 and 2231, before respondent Court. The respondent court dismissed the case for damages on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Hence, the petition to review the order of the former Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII, dated December 16, 1968.

Issues:

Whether the cause of action is in the nature of workmen’s compensation claim or claim for damages pursuant to the provisions of the civil code.

Whether the petitioners have the right of a selection or choice of action between availing the worker’s right under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages.

Whether the court legislate in the instant case.

 

HELD:

The court ruled that the nature of petitioners’ complaint is not compensation based on Workmen’s Compensation Act, but a complaint for damages. Under compensation acts, the employer is liable to pay compensation benefits for loss of income, as long as the death, sickness or injury is work- connected or work-aggravated, even if the death or injury is not due to the fault of the employer. Whereas, damages are awarded to one as a vindication of the wrongful invasion of his rights. It is the indemnity recoverable by a person who has sustained injury either in his person, property or relative rights, through the act or default of another.

In the allegation of the petitioners, there was no complaint that the employee died from accident arising out of and in the course of their employment to constitute compensation under WCA. Instead, petitioners alleges gross and reckless negligence and deliberate failure on the part of Philex to protect the lives of its workers as a consequence of which a cave-in occurred resulting in the death of the employees working underground. It is a given that a contractual relationship exist between Philex and the deceased employees, the alleged gross and reckless negligence and deliberate failure that amount to bad faith on the part of Philex, constitute a breach of contract for which it may be held liable for damages.

Yes. The court held that the petitioners have the right to choose between availing the worker’s right under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages, but cannot simultaneously pursue both course of action. However, in the case were petitioners have already recovered damages on WCA which was based on ignorance or a mistake of fact, if the regular courts awarded greater amount than they received, payments made under the WCA should be deducted from the damages that may be decreed in their favor to prevent the instance of double jeopardy. In hearing of the case, divergent opinions of amici curiae where submitted in their respective memoranda. Justice Lazaro is of the opinion that an injured employee or worker, or the heirs in case of his death, may initiate a complaint to recover damages with the regular court on the basis of negligence of an employer pursuant to the Civil Code provisions and not compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Atty. Angara believes otherwise and submitted that the remedy of an injured employee for work-connected injury or accident is exclusive in accordance with Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. While Atty. Bacungan's position is that the action is selective; that the heirs of the employee in case of his death have a right of choice to avail themselves of the benefits provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act or to sue in the regular court under the Civil Code for higher damages from the employer by virtue of negligence of the latter. Atty. Bocobo agreed on Atty. Bacungan ‘s stand and adds that once the heirs elect the remedy provided for under the Act, they are no longer entitled to avail themselves of the remedy provided for under the Civil Code by filing an action for higher damages in the regular court, and vice versa. No. In allowing the petitioners to sue in regular courts, the Court held that it did not legislate but instead merely applied and gave effect to the constitutional guarantees of social justice. Under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, decisions of the Supreme Court form part of the law of the land. This was restated by the Court through the late Chief Justice Castro in People vs. Licera that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of this jurisdiction's legal system. These decisions, although in themselves not laws, constitute evidence of what the laws mean. The application or interpretation placed by the Court upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Court's application or interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect. Mandated by Article 9 of the New Civil Code, which provides that “No judge or court shall decline to render judgement by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of laws”, the court argued that in some cases it must legislate. In the language of Justice Holmes, the court in certain cases “do and must legislate” to fill the gaps of the law; because the mind of the legislator, like all human beings, is finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible cases to which the law may apply nor has the human mind the infinite capacity to anticipate all situations.