Floresca v. Philex G.R. No.

L-30642 (1985)

Case. Petition to review lower court decision dismissing a civil complaint lodged against Philex

Facts.

1. It is alleged that prior to the accident, Philex failed 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 (Courts of First Instance) .

3. Philex filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the accident falls under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) and thus outside of
CFI jurisdiction.

Note: WCA provides that (1) such work-connected deaths are within the jurisdiction of Workmen ’ s Compensation Commission
(WCC) and (2) if the employer is negligent, employer shall pay the compensation plus 50% of same compensation.

But in essence, the respondents invoke Section 5 of the WCA which states: “Exclusive right to compensation — The rights and
remedies granted by this Act to an employee by reason of a personal injury entitling him to compensation shall exclude all other
rights and remedies accruing to the employee, his personal representatives, dependents or nearest of kin against the employer
under the Civil Code and other laws because of said injury.”

4. Because the heirs have already received compensation, they are no longer entitled to a damage suit.

5. The heirs of the deceased filed the present petition.

Issue.
(1) Does CFI has jurisdiction? -Yes

(2) Whether the petitioners can only avail of WCA action or have a choice between WCA action and civil damage in regular court or
can avail of both WCA and civil damage? –Choose either one but not both.

Ratio. To answer the two issues, (2) should be addressed before (1). (2) Generally, petitioners must choose between a WCA action
and civil suit. This is what the Section 5 of WCA provides and what has been applied in various court decisions. But the court
decided to render leeway to the petitioners given the peculiarity of the instances. Petitioners have already received compensation
under the WCA. Afterwards, they learned of the true cause of the accident which was Philex’s negligence. And then they filed a civil
suit. The court reasoned that had the petitioners learned of the cause much sooner, petitioners would have filed for a civil suit
instead. Petitioners’ initial resort to WCA action, the court said, is based on ignorance or mistake of fact. Because petitioners were
not informed of the true cause, they had not the choice between a WCA and a civil suit. This then creates an exception to Section 5
of WCA. Hence, court remanded the case to lower court for proper judgment. (1) CFI now has jurisdiction because of the court’s
making an exception of the case.

Doctrine: The topic, limitation on the power of courts to construe, can be found within court’s discussion of the second issue. The
two dissenting opinions posit that a careful reading of Section 5 of WCA would demonstrate that when a complainant has already
availed of compensation via WCA, his/her right to sue in civil or other courts are understood to have been extinguished. After
passage of WCA, legislature had plenty of occasion to modify relevant provision but did not do so. This, according to dissent, is
manifest of legislative’s continuing intent to retain the exclusivity provided therein. In the majority opinion’s decision to allow
petitioners to file case despite having received their WCA compensation, dissent argues that the court has exercised a power
outside of its capacities, i.e. that it has legislated.

To this, the majority opinion enunciates that it has not legislated. What it did was a mere implementation of the Constitution and
relevant statutes. Secs. 6, 7, and 9 of Art. II of 1973 Constitution guarantees social justice, establishes adequate services in
employment, and protects labor. With these provisions, the present court only gave effect to the rights petitioners are entitled to.
No legislation occurred, because the principles are already present and need only be applied.