VERSION 1:

D,M. Consunji vs. Court of Appeals

GR No. 137873 April 20, 2001

FACTS:

At around 1:30 p.m., November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of D. M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors
from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his death. On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego’s widow, Maria, filed in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig a complaint for damages against the deceased’s employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc.
The employer raised, among other defenses, the widow’s prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance
Fund. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego.
On appeal by D. M. Consunji, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.
D. M. Consunji then sought the reversal of the CA decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner is held liable under the grounds of negligence.

2. Whether or not the injured employee or his heirs in case of death have a right of selection or choice of
action between availing themselves of the worker’s right under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and suing
in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages (actual, moral and exemplary) from the
employers by virtue of the negligence or fault of the employers or whether they may avail themselves
cumulatively of both actions,

RULING:

1. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing or transaction speaks for itself) is peculiar to the
law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and
furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. It has the following requisites: (1) the accident was of
a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency which
caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence; and (3)the injury
suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person
injured. All the requisites for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur are present in the
case at bar, thus a reasonable presumption or inference of appellant’s negligence
arises. Petitioner does not cite any other evidence to rebut the inference or presumption of negligence
arising from the application of res ipsa loquitur, or to establish any defense relating to the incident.

2. The claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment could be filed only under
the Workmen´s Compensation Law, to the exclusion of all further claims under other laws. In the course of
availing the remedies provided under the Workmen’s Compensation law, the claimants are deemed to have
waived their known right of the remedies provided by other laws. The Court of Appeals, however, held that
the case at bar came under exception because private respondent was unaware of petitioner´s negligence
when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund. Had the claimant been aware,
she would’ve opted to avail of a better remedy than that of which she already had.

Source: https://attylapadiday.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/case-digest-consunji-vs-court-of-appeals/
VERSION 2:

D,M. Consunji vs. Court of Appeals

GR No. 137873 April 20, 2001

FACTS:

On November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of D.M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors from the Renaissance
Tower, Pasig City to his death. On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego´s widow, filed in the RTC of Pasig a complaint for damages
against the deceased´s employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer raised, among other defenses, the widow´s prior
availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego,
ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff. On appeal by D.M. Consunji, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.
Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner (Consunji) is negligent and should be liable.

Held:

The decision of the CA is affirmed. The claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment could
be filed only under the Workmen´s Compensation Law, to the exclusion of all further claims under other laws. The CA
held that the case at bar came under exception because private respondent was unaware of petitioner´s negligence when
she filed her claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund.

Source: http://lawandbar.blogspot.com/2014/04/civil-case-dm-consunji-vs-court-of.html