LANDMARK CASE
TOPIC: ART. 9, JUDICIAL LEGISLATION
PERFECTO S. FLORESCA, in his own behalf and on behalf of the minors ROMULO and NESTOR S. FLORESCA; and ERLINDA FLORESCA-GABUYO, PEDRO S. FLORESCA, JR., CELSO S. FLORESCA, MELBA S. FLORESCA, JUDITH S. FLORESCA and CARMEN S. FLORESCA; LYDIA CARAMAT VDA. DE MARTINEZ in her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children LINDA, ROMEO, ANTONIO JEAN and ELY, all surnamed Martinez; and DANIEL MARTINEZ and TOMAS MARTINEZ; SALUSTIANA ASPIRAS VDA. DE OBRA, in her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children JOSE, ESTELA, JULITA SALUD and DANILO, all surnamed OBRA; LYDIA CULBENGAN VDA. DE VILLAR, in her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children EDNA, GEORGE and LARRY III, all surnamed VILLAR; DOLORES LOLITA ADER VDA. DE LANUZA, in her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children EDITHA, ELIZABETH, DIVINA, RAYMUNDO, NESTOR and AURELIO, JR. all surnamed LANUZA; EMERENCIANA JOSE VDA. DE ISLA, in her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children JOSE, LORENZO, JR., MARIA, VENUS and FELIX, all surnamed ISLA, petitioners,
vs.
PHILEX MINING CORPORATION and HON. JESUS P. MORFE, Presiding Judge of Branch XIII, Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.
Rodolfo C. Pacampara for petitioners.
Tito M. Villaluna for respondents.
FACTS:
Date filed before SC: 16 December 1968
1. Sometime prior to 28 June 1967, It is alleged
that prior to the accident, Philex with gross and reckless negligence and
imprudence and deliberate failure to address safety concerns in the mining
site. Much water accumulated in an open pit area which caused pressure in the
working shafts below. As a result, said area collapsed. Out of 48, 5 escaped,
22 rescued within the week. But 21 were left to die due to Philex’s order to
stop rescue mission.
2. Heirs of the 21 filed a civil complaint in CFI. Philex
filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the accident falls under the Workers’
Compensation Act (WCA) and thus outside of CFI jurisdiction. Workmen's
compensation refers to liability for compensation for loss resulting from
injury, disability or death of the working man through industrial accident or
disease, without regard to the fault or negligence of the employer, while the
claim for damages under the Civil Code which petitioners pursued in the regular
court, refers to the employer's liability for reckless and wanton negligence
resulting in the death of the employees and for which the regular court has
jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. Suing in regular courts under the Civil
Code entails higher damages (actual, moral and/or exemplary). But since
the heirs have already received compensation by virtue of WCA, they are no
longer entitled to a damage suit.
3. Petitioners' defense is that the claims were filed under
the Workmen's Compensation Act before they learned of the official report of
the committee created to investigate the accident which established the
criminal negligence and violation of law by Philex, and which report was
forwarded by the Director of Mines to the then Executive Secretary Rafael Salas
in a letter dated October 19, 1967 only.
4. It was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The heirs of
the deceased filed the present petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the injured/deceased employees' heirs 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.
2. Whether there was judicial legislation.
(judicial legislation was precluded in nagkakaisang maralita case)
RULING:
1. YES. It was ruled in Pacana Vs. Cebu Autobus Company 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 cannot pursue both courses of action simultaneously.
In this
case, although the other petitioners had received the benefits under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, such may not preclude them from bringing an action
before the regular court because they became cognizant of the fact that Philex
has been remiss in its contractual obligations with the deceased miners only
after receiving compensation under the Act. Had petitioners been aware of 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 choice of the first remedy
was based on ignorance or a mistake of fact, which nullifies the choice as it
was not an intelligent choice.
That "myth" had been exploded by Article 9 of the New Civil Code, which provides that "No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. "
Hence, even the legislator himself, through Article 9 of the New Civil Code, recognizes that in certain instances, the court, in the language of Justice Holmes, "do and must legislate" to fill in the gaps in the law; because the mind of the legislator, like all human beings, is finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible cases to which the law may apply Nor has the human mind the infinite capacity to anticipate all situations.
It should be stressed that the liability of the employer under Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act or Article 173 of the New Labor Code is limited to death, ailment or injury caused by the nature of the work, without any fault on the part of the employers. It is correctly termed no fault liability. Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, or Article 173 of the New Labor Code, does not cover the tortious liability of the employer occasioned by his fault or culpable negligence in failing to provide the safety devices required by the law for the protection of the life, limb and health of the workers. Under either Section 5 or Article 173, the employer remains liable to pay compensation benefits to the employee whose death, ailment or injury is work-connected, even if the employer has faithfully and diligently furnished all the safety measures and contrivances decreed by the law to protect the employee.
However, in the New Civil Code awards actual, moral, and exemplary damages:
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 non-performance of the obligation.
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Although it is obviously clear that claimants could only opt between claiming from Workmen's Compensation Act which shall pay additional compensation equal to 50% of the compensation fixed in the Act, or damages from a civil suit, the families of the 21 deceased would have instituted a civil action had they known about this option for higher claims despite more difficulties. (i.e. proving that Philex Mining was negligent, imprudent, and at fault) instead pursuing an easy claim under the former.
The articles of the New Civil Code implemented constitutional provisions that "promote social justice to insure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people "... regulate the use ... and disposition of private property and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits "establish, maintain and ensure adequate social services in, the field of education, health, housing, employment, welfare and social security to guarantee the enjoyment by the people of a decent standard of living" (Sections 6 and 7, Art. II, 1973 Constitution); "... afford protection to labor, ... and regulate the relations between workers and employers ..., and assure the rights of workers to ... just and humane conditions of work" (Sec. 9, Art. II, 1973 Constitution).
NOTE. — The foregoing Act became a law on December 10, 1927, the action of the Legislature alone and by virtue of the provision of the Philippine Organic Law. In view of section 44 of the said Act, it will become effective after six months or on June 10, 1928
Article 10 of the New Civil Code states: "In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the law-making body intended right and justice to prevail. "
More specifically, Article 1702 of the New Civil Code likewise directs that. "In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer."
Comments
Post a Comment