Case Digest: Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

G.R. No. L-30642 (April 30, 1985)

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

FACTS:

Several miners, who, while working at the 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. The heirs of the deceased claimed 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, pointing out in the complaint 'gross and brazen negligence on the part of Philex in failing to take necessary security for the protection of the lives of its employees working underground'. Philex invoked that they can no longer be sued because the petitioners have already claimed benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which, Philex insists, holds jurisdiction over provisions for remedies.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the heirs of the deceased have a right of selection 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. 

RULING: 

The court held that 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. The case should therefore be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. However, should the petitioners be successful in their bid before the lower court, the payments made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act should be deducted from the damages that may be decreed in their favor.

Categories: case digest, Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation, G.R. No. L-30642, LABOR LAW