Legal Research

Floresca, et. al, v. PHILEX

135 SCRA 141, April 30, 1985
Ponente: Makasiar
I.

Laws Involved
Act 3248 (Workmens Compensation Act) amended by RA
722
Civil Code of the Philippines
o

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to

another,
there
being
fault
or
negligence,
is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
Art. 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also
applicable to a quasi-delict. (b) Art. 1173 The fault or
negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the
time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the
provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply
Art. 2201. x x x x x x x x x In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or
wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all
damages which may be reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation
Art. 2231. In quasidelicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

II. Terms
Amicus curiae friend of the Court; expert who can advise
the Court (plural: amici curiae)
III. Reliefs Sought
Petition for review of the order of the Court of First Instance
of Manila dismissing petitioners complaint for damages on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction

Key words: mining, labor laws, Philex, Workmens

Compensation Commission / Act, equity, judicial
legislation, Civil Code, damages, compensation

IV. Facts
Petitioners are heirs of employees of Philex who died when
a Philex copper mine in Tuba, Benguet caved in and buried
the employees
Complaint alleges that Philex violated government
regulations on mining and neglected the safety of its
employees
o Water and mud accumulated in the mining area, making
it collapse
o Philex suspended the rescue of 21 missing employees
o Petitioners allege that Philex had more than enough
income to create better working conditions
Philex filed a motion to dismiss dated May 14, 1968 saying
that causes of action based on industrial accidents are
covered by Act 3428 and that the CFI had no jurisdiction
over the case
Petitioners replied on May 7, 1968 saying that their causes
of action are based on the provisions of the Civil Code
June 27, 1968 Judge dismissed the petition, saying that
the Workmens Compensation Commission had original
jurisdiction over the case
Petitioners moved to reconsider and were granted the
petition on September 23, 1968
Philex moved to reconsider
On December 16, 1998, the Judge of the CFI dismissed the
motion, citing that the Workmens Compensation
Commission had original jurisdiction over the case.
Case elevated to Supreme Court (no Court of Appeals
during this time)

GAITE | 1C

Legal Research

The heirs of Floresca filed a Motion to Dismiss after having

an amicable settlement with Philex; however the Court
pursued the trial because of other petitioners
Amici curiae: Labor Undersecretary Israel Bocobo, Atty.
Edgardo Angara, Justice Manuel Lazaro, Froilan Bacungan
V. Issue/s and Held
1. W/N an injured employee or worker or that of his heirs

in case of his death under the Workmen's

Compensation Act is exclusive, selective or cumulative,
that is to say, whether his or his heirs' action is
exclusively restricted to
seeking
the limited
compensation
provided
under
the
Workmen's
Compensation Act or whether they have a right of
selection or choice of action between availing 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/or exemplary) from
the employer by virtue of negligence (or fault) of the
employer or of his other employees or whether they
may avail cumulatively of both actions, i.e., collect the
limited
compensation
under
the
Workmen's
Compensation Act and sue in addition for damages in
the regular courts.
Lazaro: workers may initiate a complaint to recover
damages through regular courts on the basis of
negligence pursuant to Civil Code provisions.
Angara: remedy of injured employee for work-connected
injury is exclusive according to Section 5 of the WCA
Bacungan: selective action; heirs have the right to avail
of the benefits in the WCA or to sue in a regular Court
Bocobo: Same as Atty. Bacungan 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.
2. W/N the CFI of Manila had jurisdiction to try the Case

The CFI has jurisdiction because the petition is not

based on the WCA compensation but a complaint for
damages.
Petitioners did not invoke the provisions of the WCA
Negligence of Philex is a cause of action under the Civil
Code Bad faith and breach of contract
WCA compensation rationale payments to mitigate
harshness of working conditions
Civil Case damages rationale vindication for wrongful
invasion of rights / injuries sustained to person / property
3. W/N 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
that negligence or fault of the employers or whether
they may avail themselves cumulatively of both actions
An injured worker has a choice of either to recover from
the employer the fixed amounts set by the Workmen's
Compensation Act or to prosecute an ordinary civil
action against the tort feasor for higher damages but he
cannot pursue both courses of action simultaneously.
Payments made under the WCA should be deducted
from the damages decreed in their favor.

GAITE | 1C

Legal Research

VI. Separate Opinions

On Judicial Legislation
That the judiciary cannot legislate is a myth shattered by
Art. 8 of the Civil Code; against silence of the laws
Judicial decisions are equal to statutes in effectivity
On Equity / Social Justice as Filling in the Gap
State principles favor social justice for laborers
Bill of Rights insulates citizens and ensures that
fundamental rights are protected by all regimes
All laws construed in favor of labor/social justice/equity.
American / foreign jurisprudence has no social justice
rulings to base the decision from
Criticism of the Dissent
The dissent seems to subordinate the life of the laborer
to the property rights of the employer.
Condones and therefore encourages such gross or
wanton neglect on the part of the employer to comply
with his legal obligation to provide safety measures for
the protection of the life, limb and health of his worker.
Statutes cannot override constitution
Laissez-faire discredited as an economic system
Dissent subscribes to the myth of a lack of judicial
legislation
Courts do and must legislate to fill the gaps
Power of the courts not limited by separation of powers.
WHEREFORE, THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER OF
DISMISSAL IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND THE
CASE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
SHOULD A GREATER AMOUNT OF DAMAGES BE DECREED
IN FAVOR OF HEREIN PETITIONERS, THE PAYMENTS
ALREADY MADE TO THEM PURSUANT TO THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT SHALL BE DEDUCTED. NO COSTS.

Melencio-Herrera, dissenting
Two reasons why petitioners should not be allowed to
sue under the Civil Code:
o Proceedings under the WCA have become finished
transactions
o If there are many options for remedy and one
secures the benefits of a remedy, he shall not avail
of the other. He should surrender the benefits made
under the first option if he successfully invoked the
second option for relief.
If the legislative intent under the first paragraph of
Section 5 were to allow the injured employee to sue his
employer under the Civil Code, the legislator could very
easily have formulated the said first paragraph of Act
The law has exclusive grounds / jurisdiction.
When a Court gives effect to a statute not in accordance
with the intent of the lawmaker, the Court is unjustifiably
legislating.
Gutierrez, dissenting
To grant the petition and allow the victims of industrial
accidents to file damages suits based on torts would be
a radical innovation not only contrary to the express
provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act
Departure from the principles evolved in the long history
of workmen's compensation.
"The mere relation of the master and the servant never
can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take
more care of the servant than he may reasonably be
expected to do of himself."
GAITE | 1C

Legal Research

By entering into a contract of employment, the worker

was deemed to accept the risks of employment that he
should discover and guard against himself.
Facts and law uncertain as to whose fault it was that the
incident happened.
Goods and services should ultimately bear the cost of
the injuries or deaths that are incident to the
manufacture, preparation and distribution of the product.
Schedule of compensation and premiums has already
been carefully studied. Court interference due to
generosity may endanger the structure.
Majority allowed the undue stretching of the law, judicial
legislation and payment of compensation for
contingencies never envisioned to be compensable
when the law was formulated.

GAITE | 1C