Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Floresca Et Al. vs. Philex Mining Corporation Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jet jet Nueva
    Several employees died in a mining cave-in. Their heirs sued the mining company for damages alleging negligence. The company claimed the court had no jurisdiction and the case should be handled by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The court found it did have jurisdiction since the complaint alleged negligence, not compensation, and remanded the case to the lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Floresca Et Al. vs. Philex Mining Corporation Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jet jet Nueva
    13 views2 pages
    Several employees died in a mining cave-in. Their heirs sued the mining company for damages alleging negligence. The company claimed the court had no jurisdiction and the case should be handled by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The court found it did have jurisdiction since the complaint alleged negligence, not compensation, and remanded the case to the lower court.

    Original Title

    Floresca et al. vs. Philex Mining Corporation Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Several employees died in a mining cave-in. Their heirs sued the mining company for damages alleging negligence. The company claimed the court had no jurisdiction and the case should be handled by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The court found it did have jurisdiction since the complaint alleged negligence, not compensation, and remanded the case to the lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Floresca Et Al. vs. Philex Mining Corporation Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jet jet Nueva
    Several employees died in a mining cave-in. Their heirs sued the mining company for damages alleging negligence. The company claimed the court had no jurisdiction and the case should be handled by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The court found it did have jurisdiction since the complaint alleged negligence, not compensation, and remanded the case to the lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Floresca et al.

    vs Philex Mining Corporation


    GR No. L-30642
    April 30, 1985

    Facts:
    Several employees of defendant Philex Mining Corporation, while working at its copper mines
    underground operations at Tuba, Benguet, died as a result of the cave-in that buried them in the tunnels
    of the mine. The heirs of the deceased employees filed a complaint for damages. They alleged that
    Philex negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precautions for the protection of the lives
    of its men working underground.
    There were 48 mine workers. Five were able to escape the cave-in; 22 were rescued within the next
    seven days; however, the rest of 21 workers were not rescued, allegedly due to defendant Philex’s
    decision to abandon the rescue operations.
    The defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the causes of action of the petitioners are covered
    by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended by RA 772, and that the former
    Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over the case.
    The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the case on the ground that it falls within the exclusive
    jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Hence, the present petition to review.

    Issue:
    WON the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try the case.

    Ruling:
    Yes. The Court held that the former Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try the case.
    It should be underscored that petitioners' complaint is not for compensation based on the
    Workmen's Compensation Act but a complaint for damages (actual, exemplary and moral) in the total
    amount of eight hundred twenty-five thousand (P825,000.00) pesos. Petitioners did not invoke the
    provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act to entitle them to compensation thereunder. In fact, no
    allegation appeared in the complaint that the employees died from accident arising out of and in the
    course of their employments. The complaint instead alleges gross and reckless negligence and
    deliberate failure on the part of Philex to protect the lives of its workers as a consequence of which a
    cave-in occurred resulting in the death of the employees working underground. Settled is the rule that in
    ascertaining whether or not the cause of action is in the nature of workmen's compensation claim or a
    claim for damages pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code, the test is the averments or allegations in
    the complaint (Belandres vs. Lopez Sugar Mill, Co., Inc., 97 Phil. 100).
    In the present case, there exists between Philex and the deceased employees a contractual
    relationship. The alleged gross and reckless negligence and deliberate failure that amount to bad faith
    on the part of Philex, constitute a breach of contract for which it may be held liable for damages.
    Under the compensation acts, the employer is liable to pay compensation benefits for loss of
    income, as long as the death, sickness or injury is work-connected or work-aggravated, even if the death
    or injury is not due to the fault of the employer (Murillo vs. Mendoza, 66 Phil. 689). On the other hand,
    damages are awarded to one as a vindication of the wrongful invasion of his rights. It is the indemnity
    recoverable by a person who has sustained injury either in his person, property or relative rights,
    through the act or default of another (25 C.J.S. 452).
    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.

    You might also like