You are on page 1of 3

Floresca et al are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation (hereinafter

referred to as 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. Floresca et al moved to claim their benefits pursuant
to the Workmens Compensation Act before the Workmens Compensation Commission. They
also petitioned before the regular courts and sue Philex for additional damages. Philex invoked
that they can no longer be sued because the petitioners have already claimed benefits under the
WCA.
ISSUE: Whether or not Floresca et al can claim benefits and at the same time sue.
HELD: Under the law, Floresca et al could only do either one. If they filed for benefits under the
WCA then they will be estopped from proceeding with a civil case before the regular courts.
Conversely, if they sued before the civil courts then they would also be estopped from claiming
benefits under the WCA. The SC however ruled that Floresca et al are excused from this
deficiency due to ignorance of the fact. Had they been aware of such then they may have not
availed of such a remedy. However, if in case theyll win in the lower court whatever award may
be granted, the amount given to them under the WCA should be deducted. The SC emphasized
that if they would go strictly by the book in this case then the purpose of the law may be
defeated. Idolatrous reverence for the letter of the law sacrifices the human being. The spirit of
the law insures mans survival and ennobles him. As Shakespeare said, the letter of the law
killeth but its spirit giveth life.

Justice Gutierrez dissenting


No civil suit should prosper after claiming benefits under the WCA. If employers are already liable
to pay benefits under the WCA they should not be compelled to bear the cost of damage suits or
get insurance for that purpose. The exclusion provided by the WCA can only be properly
removed by the legislature NOT the SC.

Case: Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corp. 136 SCRA 142


Facts:
Several miners were killed in a cave-in at one of Philex
Mining Corporation's mine sites. The heirs of the miners were able
to recover under the Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA).
Thereafter, a special committee report indicated that the
company failed to provide the miners with adequate safety
protection. The heirs decided to file a complaint for damages before
the CFI of Manila.
Philex filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
action was based on an industrial accident, which is covered under
WCA, and therefore, the CFI has no jurisdiction over the case.
Philex argues that work-connected injuries are compensable
exclusively under Sections 5 and 46 of the WCA.
Philex further contends that the WCA covers work-connected
accidents even if the employer was negligent as the WCA under section
4-A imposes a 50% additional compensation in the event that the
employer was negligent.
The heirs, however, contend that the CFI has jurisdiction, as
their complaint is not based on the WCA but on the Civil Code
provisions on damages arising out of negligence.
The CFI dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The heirs questioned the dismissal before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Dies the CFI have jurisdiction over the complaint?
Held:
Majority opinion.
Several opinions were advanced as to the nature of the
remedies provided for under the WCA namely.
1. Cumulative
2. Exclusive
3. Selective
The court upheld the selective opinion as the remedy in this case.
What is selective?
The heirs had the option of choosing between availing of the
compensation under the WCA or filing an action for damages arising
out of negligence under the provisions of the Civil Code. If the
heirs have chosen one remedy, they can no longer avail of the other
remedy.
Are the heirs now precluded from selecting the remedy under the civil
code, considering that they have already availed of (and received
compensation) under the WCA?
The heirs have a choice but they cannot pursue both choices
simultaneously. The Court however, noted that the heirs only learned
of the negligence report after they have already availed and received
compensation unde4r the WCA; thus they could not make an intelligent
and informed choice at the time they opted for the WCA remedy
The heirs were thus allowed to pursue the civil code remedy but they
are not entitled to recover under both remedies. Any payment they
received under the WCA shall be deducted from the court's award of
damages, if any.

You might also like