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 Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Workmen’s 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 they’ll 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 man’s survival and ennobles him. As Shakespeare said, the letter of the law killeth but its spirit giveth life. Justice Gutierrez dissentingNo 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. Exclusive3. 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 remedyThe 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.