D. M. CONSUNJI, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA J. JUEGO, respondents.

on

Topic: Art. 3. Ignorance of the Law Excuses no one for compliance therewith.

G.R. No. 137873       April 20, 2001 

D. M. CONSUNJI, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA J. JUEGO, respondents. 

KAPUNAN, J.: 

FACTS:

1. 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. 

  • PO3 Rogelio Villanueva filed a police report of the incident.:
  • 4.8 x 2meters side steel block, bolt got loose
  • 2 construction workers were able to jump to safety
  • Maria Juego filed for damages against Jose's employer, D.M. Consunji Inc.
  • RTC granted a total of P644,000 for the death, damages, and attorney fees to Maria.
2. D.M. Consunji appealed to the C.A. to reverse the ruling. C.A. applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, ruling that negligence was present. 

3. D.M. Conjunji Inc. also argued that private respondent had previously availed of the death benefits provided under the Labor Code and is, therefore, precluded from claiming from the deceased’s employer damages under the Civil Code. 

4. This was settled in the case of Floresca whereas it was stated from another precedent that 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 tortfeasor for higher damages but he can not pursue both courses of action simultaneously.

5. Also, in a 1967-letter by the Director of Mines to then Executive Secretary Rafael Salas, it was written: Had petitioners been aware of the said violation of government rules and regulations by Philex, and of its negligence, they would not have sought redress under the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which awarded a lesser amount for compensation. The ruling in Floresca provided claimants a choice of remedies.

6. C.A. ruled that Maria Juego seemed to be ignorant of other choices of remedies and that she was not only ignorant of facts but of her rights as well. She only finished elementary and knew not of the damages that can be recovered for her husband's death, including from the Civil Code other than the ECC.

7. Petitioner argued that Mari couldn't have pleaded ignorance since she had previously filed a criminal case title "Simple Negligence resulting to Homicide." which was dismissed since it was civil in nature and she already knew of the two choices of remedies available to her and yet she chose to claim and receive the benefits from the ECC. The choice of a party between inconsistent remedies results in a waiver by election. Hence, the claimant by his choice of one remedy is deemed to have waived the other.
8. Petitioner also argues that under Article 3 of the Civil Code, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. As judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of the Philippine legal system (Article 8, Civil Code), private respondent cannot claim ignorance of this Court’s ruling in Floresca allowing a choice of remedies. 

ISSUE:
Whether or not ignorance of judicial decisions, particularly of the case of Floresca, can be held against the respondent Maria.

RULING:
No. Ignorance of judicial decisions which are not mandatory or prohibitory can not be held against herein respondent. There was no proof that Maria knew of her husband's cause of death when she submitted her application for benefits to ECC on 15 November 1990. It was only 10 days after when the police report came that she was made aware that her husband died in an elevator crash. Also, The argument has no merit. Article 3 only covers mandatory and prohibitory laws. The rule in Floresca allowing private respondents a choice of remedies is neither mandatory nor prohibitory. Thus, Maria's ignorance thereof cannot be held against her As to the computation, it will be sent back to RTC for recalculation deducting what had already been received pursuant to the Labor Code.



RATIONALE:
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW ONLY COVERS MANDATORY AND PROHIBITORY LAWS, NOT JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

WAIVER IS NEGATED BY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR MISTAKE OF FACT.

Comments

Post a Comment