GAITE | 1C

1 Legal Research

Floresca, et. al, v. PHILEX 135 SCRA 141, April 30, 1985 Ponente: Makasiar I. Laws Involved

� Act 3248 (Workmen’s 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.

o 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

o 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 non-performance of the obligation

o 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

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 Workmen’s 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 Workmen’s Compensation Commission had original jurisdiction over the case.

� Case elevated to Supreme Court (no Court of Appeals during this time)

Key words: mining, labor laws, Philex, Workmen’s Compensation Commission / Act, equity, judicial legislation, Civil Code, damages, compensation

GAITE | 1C

2 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

3 Legal Research

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.

VI. Separate Opinions � 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

4 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.