Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation 136 SCRA

9/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
No. L-30642. April 30, 1985.*
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;
_______________
* EN BANC.
142
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation
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;
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174b5e5a93f2c73bc9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/39
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.
Jurisdiction; Workmen’s Compensation; An ordinary court has

jurisdiction over complaints for damages filed by heirs of mining employees
against the mining corporation for death of the former allegedly caused by
negligence of their employer. Jurisdiction is determined by allegations in the
complaint and in the case at bar there was no allegation that they died from
accident arising from their employment.—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).
Same; Actions; Workmen’s Compensation; Damages; The heirs of
miners who died in a mining pit may choose to recover from the
143
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 143
employer either under the WCA or under the Civil Code for damages.—In
disposing of a similar issue, this Court in Pacana vs. Cebu Autobus
Company, 32 SCRA 442, ruled 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.
Same; Same; Same; Heirs of deceased miners who accepted benefits

under the WCA may still file tort action for damages against the employer
where they came to know of employer’s gross negligence only after
receiving workmen’s compensation proceeds.—WE hold 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.
Constitutional Law; Labor Law; Courts; Contrary to dissenting
opinion, this Court does not legislate as it is merely applying and giving
effect to social guarantees of the Constitution.—Contrary to the perception
of the dissenting opinion, the Court does not legislate in the instant case.
The Court merely applies and gives effect to the constitutional guarantees of
social justice then secured by Section 5 of Article II and Section 6 of Article
XIV of the 1935 Constitution, and now by Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Article II
of the DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES of the
1973 Constitution, as amended, and as implemented by Articles 2176, 2177,
2178, 1173, 2201, 2216, 2231 and 2232 of the New Civil Code of 1950.
Same; Same; Statutes; Art. 173 of the new Labor Code did not
impliedly repeal the Civil Code provisions on damages, re: right of injured
workers to claim civil damages against their employer as said
144
Art. 173 diminishes workers rights and collides with the Constitution.—The
aforestated constitutional principles as implemented by the aforementioned
articles of the New Civil Code cannot be impliedly repealed by the
restrictive provisions of Article 173 of the New Labor Code. Section 5 of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act (before it was amended by R.A. No. 772
on June 20, 1952), predecessor of Article 173 of the New Labor Code, has
been superseded by the aforestated provisions of the New Civil Code, a
subsequent law, which took effect on August 30, 1950, which obey the
constitutional mandates of social justice enhancing as they do the rights of
the workers as against their employers. Article 173 of the New Labor Code
seems to diminish the rights of the workers and therefore collides with the
social justice guarantee of the Constitution and the liberal provisions of the
New Civil Code.
Same; Same; Same; Art. 173 of the new Labor Code repealed only
certain laws, including those whose benefits are administered by SSS or
GSIS.—As above-quoted, Article 173 of the New Labor Code expressly
repealed only Section 699 of the Revised Administration Code, R.A. No.
1161, as amended, C.A. No. 186, as amended, R.A, No. 610, as amended,
R.A. No. 4864, as amended, and all other laws whose benefits are
administered by the System (referring to the GSIS or SSS).
Same; Same; Same; Damages; As damages under the new Civil Code
are not being administered by the GSIS or SSS, Art. 173 of new Labor Code
does not bar damage suit by injured worker against his employer.—It is
patent, therefore, that recovery under the new Civil Code for damages
arising from negligence, is not barred by Article 173 of the New Labor
Code. And the damages recoverable under the New Civil Code are not
administered by the System provided for by the New Labor Code, which
defines the “System” as referring to the Government Service Insurance
System or the Social Security System (Art. 167 [c], [d] and [e] of the New
Labor Code).
Same; Same; Same; Same; Judgment; Same interpretation must be
given to Art. 173 of new Labor Code as in the cases of Pacaña, Valencia
and Esguerra.—Since the first sentence of Article 173 of the New Labor
Code is merely a re-statement of the first paragraph of Section 5 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, and does not even refer, neither
expressly nor impliedly, to the Civil Code as Section 5 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act did, with greater reason said Article 173 must be subject
to the same interpretation
145
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 145
adopted in the cases of Pacaña, Valencia and Esguerra aforementioned as

the doctrine in the aforesaid three (3) cases is faithful to and advances the
social justice guarantees enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitution.
Labor Law; Workmen’s Compensation; Sec. 5 of WCA and Art. 173 of
the new Labor Code are retrogressive pieces of legislation.—The words of
Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and of Article 173 of the
New Labor Code subvert the rights of the petitioners as surviving heirs of
the deceased mining employees. Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act and Article 173 of the New Labor Code are retrogressive; because they
are a throwback to the obsolete laissez-faire doctrine of Adam Smith
enunciated in 1776 in his treatise Wealth of Nations (Collier’s
Encyclopedia, Vol. 21, p. 93, 1964), which has been discarded soon after the
close of the 18th century due to the Industrial Revolution that generated the
machines and other mechanical devices (beginning with Eli Whitney’s
cotton gin of 1793 and Robert Fulton’s steamboat of 1807) for production
and transportation which are dangerous to life, limb and health. The old
socio-political-economic philosphy of live-and-letlive is now superseded by
the benign Christian shibboleth of live-and-help others to live. Those who
profess to be Christians should not adhere to Cain’s selfish affirmation that
he is not his brother’s keeper. In this our civilization, each one of us is our
brother’s keeper. No man is an island. To assert otherwise is to be as
atavistic and ante-deluvian as the 1837 case of Prisley vs. Fowler (3 MN
1,150 reprint 1030) invoked by the dissent. The Prisley case was decided in
1837 during the era of economic royalists and robber barons of America.
Only ruthless, unfeeling capitalistics and egoistic reactionaries continue to
pay obeisance to such un-Christian doctrine. The Prisley rule humiliates
man and debases him; because the decision derisively refers to the lowly
worker as “servant” and utilizes with aristocratic arrogance “master” for
“employer.” It robs man of his inherent dignity and dehumanizes him. To
stress this affront to human dignity, WE only have to restate the quotation
from Prisley, thus: “The mere relation of the master and the servant never
can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the
servant than he may reasonably be expected to do himself.” This is the very
selfish doctrine that provoked the American Civil War which generated so
much hatred and drew so much precious blood on American plains and
valleys from 1861 to 1864.
Constitutional Law; Judgments; Courts; The dissenting opinion clings
to the myth that courts cannot legislate. This myth has already
146
been exploded.—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.”
Same; Same; Same; Same.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Same.—But about two centuries before Article 9
of the New Civil Code, the founding fathers of the American Constitution
foresaw and recognized the eventuality that the courts may have to legislate
to supply the omissions or to clarify the ambiguities in the American
Constitution and the statutes. Thus, Alexander Hamilton pragmatically
admits that judicial legislation may be justified but denies that the power of
the Judiciary to nullify statutes may give rise to Judicial tyranny (The
Federalist, Modern Library, pp. 503-511, 1937 ed,), Thomas Jefferson went
farther to concede that the court is even independent of the Nation itself
(A.F.L. vs. American Sash Company, 1949 335 US 538).
Same; Same; Same; Same.—Finally, Justice Holmes delivered the coup
de grace when he pragmatically admitted, although with a cautionary
undertone: “that judges do and must legislate, but they can do so only
interstitially; they are confined from molar to molecular motions” (Southern
Pacific Company vs. Jensen, 244 US 204 1917).
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:
Statutes; Workmen’s Compensation; Actions; Damages; The WCA is a

special law and by the Civil Code’s provisions has to apply in injury cases
of employees.—By the very provisions of the Civil Code, it is a “special
law,” not the Code itself, which has to apply to the complaint involved in
the instant case. That “special law,” in reference to the complaint, can be no
other than the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Employee who receives workmen’s
compensation benefits cannot anymore file damage suit against his
147
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 147
employer.—Even assuming without conceding, that an employee is entitled

to an election of remedies, as the majority rules, both options cannot be
exercised simultaneously, and the exercise of one will preclude the exercise
of the other. The petitioners had already exercised their option to come
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and they have already received
compensation payable to them under that Act. Stated differently, the remedy
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act had already become a “finished
transaction.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Use of word “exclusively” is manifest
legislative intent that remedy of injured worker must be sought under the
WCA.—The use of the word “exclusively” is a further confirmation of the
exclusory provision of the Act, subject only to exceptions which may be

provided in the Act itself.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same.—If the legislative intent under the
first paragraph of Section 5 were to allow the injured employee to sue his
employer under the Civil Code, the legislator could very easily have
formulated the said first paragraph of Section 5 according to the pattern of
Section 6. That that was not done shows the legislative intent not to allow
any option to an employee to sue the employer under the Civil Code for
injuries compensable under the Act.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J., dissenting:
Workmen’s Compensation; Damages; Actions; Statutes; The workmen’s

compensation law represents a compromise whereby for a fixed sum of
money, an injured worker surrenders the right to file tort action against his
employer.—I cite the above familiar background because workmen’s
compensation represents a compromise. In return for the near certainty of
receiving a sum of money fixed by law, the injured worker gives up the right
to subject the employer to a tort suit for huge amounts of damages. Thus,
liability not only disregards the element of fault but it is also a pre-
determined amount based on the wages of the injured worker and in certain
cases, the actual cost of rehabilitation. The worker does not receive the total
damages for his pain and suffering which he could otherwise claim in a civil
suit. The employer is required to act swiftly on compensation claims. An
administrative agency supervises the program. And because the
overwhelming mass of workingmen are benefited by the compensation
system, individual workers who may want to sue for big amounts of
damages must yield to the interests of their entire working class.
148
Same; Same; Same; Same; Courts; Courts should not assume the role
of legislator.—I am against the Court assuming the role of legislator in a
matter calling for actuarial studies and public hearings. If employers already
required to contribute to the State Insurance Fund will still have to bear the
cost of damage suits or get insurance for that purpose, a major study will be
necessary. The issue before us is more far reaching than the interests of the
poor victims and their families. All workers covered by workmen’s
compensation and all employers who employ covered employees are
affected. Even as I have deepest sympathies for the victims, I regret that I
am constrained to dissent from the majority opinion.
PETITION to review the order of the Court of First Instance of

Manila, Br. XIII. Morfe, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Rodolfo C. Pacampara for petitioners.
Tito M. Villaluna for respondents.
MAKASIAR, J.:
This is a petition to review the order of the former Court of First

Instance of Manila, Branch XIII, dated December 16, 1968
dismissing petitioners’ complaint for damages on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction.
Petitioners are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex
Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Philex), who, while
working at its 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. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Philex, in violation of government rules and regulations,
negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precautions
for the protection of the lives of its men working underground.
Portion of the complaint reads:
“x x x x x x x x x;
“9. That for sometime prior and up to June 28, 1967, the defendant
PHILEX, with gross and reckless negligence and imprudence and
deliberate failure to take the required precautions for the due protection of
the lives of its men working underground at the time, and in utter violation
of the laws and the rules and regulations duly
149
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 149

promulgated by the Government pursuant thereto, allowed great amount of

water and mud to accumulate in an open pit area at the mine above Block
43-S-1 which seeped through and saturated the 600 ft. column of broken ore
and rock below it, thereby exerting tremendous pressure on the working
spaces at its 4300 level, with the result that, on the said date, at about 4
o’clock in the afternoon, with the collapse of all underground supports due
to such enormous pressure, approximately 500,000 cubic feet of broken
ores, rocks, mud and water, accompanied by surface boulders, blasted
through the tunnels and flowed out and filled in, in a matter of
approximately five (5) minutes, the underground workings, ripped timber
supports and carried off materials, machines and equipment which blocked
all avenues of exit, thereby trapping within its tunnels of all its men above
referred to, including those named in the next preceding paragraph,
represented by the plaintiffs herein;
“10. That out of the 48 mine workers who were then working at
defendant PHILEX’s mine on the said date, five (5) were able to escape
from the terrifying holocaust; 22 were rescued within the next 7 days; and
the rest, 21 in number, including those referred to in paragraph 7

hereinabove, were left mercilessly to their fate, notwithstanding the fact that
up to then, a great many of them were still alive, entombed in the tunnels of
the mine, but were not rescued due to defendant PHILEX’s decision to
abandon rescue operations, in utter disregard of its bounden legal and moral
duties in the premises;
“x x x x x x x x x;
“13. That defendant PHILEX not only violated the law and the rules and
regulations duly promulgated by the duly constituted authorities as set out
by the Special Committee above referred to, in their Report of Investigation,
pages 7-13, Annex ‘B’ hereof, but also failed completely to provide its men
working underground the necessary security for the protection of their lives
notwithstanding the fact that it had vast financial resources, it having made,
during the year 1966 alone, a total operating income of P38,220,254.00, or
net earnings, after taxes of P19,117,394.00, as per its 11th Annual Report
for the year ended December 31, 1966, and with aggregate assets totalling
P45,794,103.00 as of December 31, 1966;
“x x x x x x x x x” (pp. 42-44, rec.).
A motion to dismiss dated May 14, 1968 was filed by Philex

alleging that the causes of action of petitioners based on an
industrial accident are covered by the provisions of the
150

Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act 3428, as amended by RA 772)

and that the former Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over
the case. Petitioners filed an opposition dated May 27, 1968 to the
said motion to dismiss claiming that the causes of action are not
based on the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act but on
the provisions of the Civil Code allowing the award of actual, moral
and exemplary damages, particularly:
“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.”
After a reply and a rejoinder thereto were filed, respondent Judge

issued an order dated June 27, 1968 dismissing the case on the
ground that it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission. On petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration of the said order, respondent Judge, on September
23, 1968, reconsidered and set aside his order of June 27, 1968 and
allowed Philex to file an answer to the complaint. Philex moved to
reconsider the aforesaid order which was opposed by petitioners.
On December 16, 1968, respondent Judge dismissed the
151
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 151

case for lack of jurisdiction and ruled that in accordance with the
established jurisprudence, the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over damage or
compensation claims for work-connected deaths or injuries of
workmen or employees, irrespective of whether or not the employer
was negligent, adding that if the employer’s negligence results in
work-connected deaths or injuries, the employer shall, pursuant to
Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, pay additional
compensation equal to 50% of the compensation fixed in the Act.
Petitioners thus filed the present petition.
In their brief, petitioners raised the following assignment of
errors:
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFFS-

PETITIONERS’ COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
II
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE

CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES UNDER
THE CIVIL CODE AND CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT.”
A
In the first assignment of error, petitioners argue that the lower court
has jurisdiction over the cause of action since the complaint is based
on the provisions of the Civil Code on damages, particularly Articles
2176, 2178, 1173, 2201 and 2231, and not on the provisions of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act. They point out that the complaint
alleges gross and brazen negligence on the part of Philex in failing
to take the necessary security for the protection of the lives of its
employees working underground. They also assert that since Philex
opted to file a motion to dismiss in the court a quo, the
152

allegations in their complaint including those contained in the

annexes are deemed admitted.
In the second assignment of error, petitioners asseverate that
respondent Judge failed to see the distinction between the claims for
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the
claims for damages based on gross negligence of Philex under the
Civil Code. They point out that 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.
On the other hand, Philex asserts that work-connected injuries
are compensable exclusively under the provisions of Sections 5 and
46 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which read:
“SEC. 5. 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 x x x.
“SEC. 46. Jurisdiction.—The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims for compensation
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, subject to appeal to the Supreme
Court, x x x.”
Philex cites the case of Manalo vs. Foster Wheeler (98 Phil. 855
[1956]) where it was held that “all claims of workmen against their
employer for damages due to accident suffered in the course of
employment shall be investigated and adjudicated by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission,” subject to appeal to the Supreme

Court.
Philex maintains that the fact that an employer was negligent,
does not remove the case from the exclusive
153
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 153

character of recoveries under the Workmen’s Compensation Act;

because Section 4-A of the Act provides an additional compensation
in case the employer fails to comply with the requirements of safety
as imposed by law to prevent accidents. In fact, it points out that
Philex voluntarily paid the compensation due the petitioners and all
the payments have been accepted in behalf of the deceased miners,
except the heirs of Nazarito Floresca who insisted that they are
entitled to a greater amount of damages under the Civil Code.
In the hearing of this case, then Undersecretary of Labor Israel
Bocobo, then Atty. Edgardo Angara, now President of the University
of the Philippines, Justice Manuel Lazaro, as corporate counsel and
Assistant General Manager of the GSIS Legal Affairs Department,
and Commissioner on Elections, formerly UP Law Center Director
Froilan Bacungan, appeared as amici curiae and thereafter,
submitted their respective memoranda.
The issue to be resolved as WE stated in the resolution of
November 26, 1976, is:
“Whether the action of an injured employee or worker or that of his heirs in

case of his death under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is exclusive,
selective or cumulative, that is to say, whether his or his heirs’ action is
exclusively restricted to seeking the limited compensation provided under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act or whether they 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.”
There are divergent opinions in this case. Justice Lazaro is of the

opinion that an injured employee or worker, or the heirs in case of
his death, may initiate a complaint to recover damages (not
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act) with the
regular court on the basis of negligence of an employer pursuant to
the Civil Code provisions, Atty. Angara believes otherwise. He
submits that the remedy of an injured
154

employee for work-connected injury or accident is exclusive in

accordance with Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
while Atty. Bacungan’s position is that the action is selective. He
opines that the heirs of the employee in case of his death have a right
of choice to avail themselves of the benefits provided under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act or to sue in the regular court under
the Civil Code for higher damages from the employer by virtue of
negligence of the latter, Atty. Bocobo’s stand is the same as that of
Atty. Bacungan and adds that once the heirs elect the remedy
provided for under the Act, they are no longer entitled to avail
themselves of the remedy provided for under the Civil Code by
filing an action for higher damages in the regular court, and vice
versa.
On August 3, 1978, petitioners-heirs of deceased employee
Nazarito Floresca filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that they
have amicably settled their claim with respondent Philex. In the
resolution of September 7, 1978, WE dismissed the petition only
insofar as the aforesaid petitioners are connected, it appearing that
there are other petitioners in this case.
WE hold 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).
155
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 155
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. The provisions of the Civil Code on cases of
breach of contract when there is fraud or bad faith, read:
“Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary
damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive
or malevolent manner.
“Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the
obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural
and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the
parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the
obligation was constituted.
“In cases 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.”
Furthermore, Articles 2216 et seq., Civil Code, allow the payment of

all kinds of damages, as assessed by the court.
The rationale in awarding compensation under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act differs from that in giving damages under the
Civil Code. The compensation acts are based on a theory of
compensation distinct from the existing theories of damages,
payments under the acts being made as compensation and not as
damages (99 C.J.S. 53). Compensation is given to mitigate the
harshness and insecurity of industrial life for the workman and his
family. Hence, an employer is liable whether negligence exists or
not since liability is created by law. Recovery under the Act is not
based on any theory of actionable wrong on the part of the employer
(99 C.J.S. 36).
In other words, 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
156

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 claimant for damages under the Civil Code has the burden of
proving the causal relation between the defendant’s negligence and
the resulting injury as well as the damages suffered. While under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, there is a presumption in favor of the
deceased or injured employee that the death or injury is work-
connected or work-aggravated; and the employer has the burden to
prove otherwise (De los Angeles vs. GSIS, 94 SCRA 308; Cariño
vs. WCC, 93 SCRA 551; Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. vs. WCC,
60 SCRA 228).
The claim of petitioners that the case is not cognizable by the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission then, now Employees
Compensation Commission, is strengthened by the fact that unlike in
the Civil Code, the Workmen’s Compensation Act did not contain
any provision for an award of actual, moral and exemplary damages.
What the Act provided was merely the right of the heirs to claim
limited compensation for the death in the amount of six thousand
(P6,000.00) pesos plus burial expenses of two hundred (P200.00)
pesos, and medical expenses when incurred (Sections 8, 12 and 13,
Workmen’s Compensation Act), and an additional compensation of
only 50% if the complaint alleges failure on the part of the employer
to “install and maintain safety appliances or to take other
precautions for the prevention of accident or occupational disease”
(Section 4-A, Ibid.). In the case at bar, the amount sought to be
recovered is over and above that which was provided under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act and which cannot be granted by the
Commission.
Moreover, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
compensation benefits should be paid to an employee who suffered
an accident not due to the facilities or lack of facilities in the
industry of his employer but caused by factors outside the industrial
plant of his employer. Under the Civil Code, the liability of the
employer, depends on breach of contract or tort. The Workmen’s
Compensation Act was specifically enacted to afford protection to
the employees or workmen. It is a social
157
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 157

legislation designed to give relief to the workman who has been the
victim of an accident causing his death or ailment or injury in the
pursuit of his employment (Abong vs. WCC, 54 SCRA 379).
WE now come to the query as to whether or not the injured
employee or his heirs in case of death have a right of selection or
choice of action 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 the negligence or fault
of the employers or whether they may avail themselves 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.
In disposing of a similar issue, this Court in Pacaña vs. Cebu
Autobus Company, 32 SCRA 442, ruled 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 Pacaña WE said:
“In the analogous case of Esguerra vs. Muñoz Palma, involving the
application of Section 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act on the injured
workers’ right to sue third-party tortfeasors in the regular courts, Mr. Justice
J.B.L. Reyes, again speaking for the Court, pointed out that the injured
worker has the choice of remedies but cannot pursue both courses of action
simultaneously and thus balanced the relative advantage of recourse under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act as against an ordinary action.
“As applied to this case, petitioner Esguerra cannot maintain his action
for damages against the respondents (defendants below), because he has
elected to seek compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and
his claim (case No. 44549 of the Compensation Commission) was being
processed at the time he filed this action in the Court of First Instance. It is
argued for petitioner that as the damages recoverable under the Civil Code
are much more extensive than the amounts that may be awarded under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, they should not be deemed incompatible. As
already
158

indicated, the injured laborer was initially free to choose either to recover
from the employer the fixed amounts set by the Compensation Law or else,
to prosecute an ordinary civil action against the tortfeasor for higher
damages. While perhaps not as profitable, the smaller indemnity obtainable
by the first course is balanced by the claimant’s being relieved of the burden
of proving the causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and
the resulting injury, and of having to establish the extent of the damage
suffered; issues that are apt to be troublesome to establish satisfactorily.
Having staked his fortunes on a particular remedy, petitioner is precluded
from pursuing the alternate course, at least until the prior claim is rejected
by the Compensation Commission. Anyway, under the proviso of Section 6
aforequoted, if the employer Franklin Baker Company recovers, by

derivative action against the alleged tortfeasors, a sum greater than the
compensation he may have paid the herein petitioner, the excess accrues to
the latter.”
Although the doctrine in the case of Esguerra vs. Muñoz Palma (104
Phil. 582), applies to third-party tortfeasor, said rule should likewise
apply to the employer-tortfeasor.
Insofar as the heirs of Nazarito Floresca are concerned, as
already stated, the petition has been dismissed in the resolution of
September 7, 1978 in view of the amicable settlement reached by
Philex and the said heirs.
With regard to the other petitioners, it was alleged by Philex in
its motion to dismiss dated May 14, 1968 before the court a quo,
that the heirs of the deceased employees, namely Emerito Obra,
Larry Villar, Jr., Aurelio Lanuza, Lorenzo Isla and Saturnino
Martinez submitted notices and claims for compensation to the
Regional Office No. 1 of the then Department of Labor and all of
them have been paid in full as of August 25, 1967, except Saturnino
Martinez whose heirs decided that they be paid in installments (pp.
106-107, rec.). Such allegation was admitted by herein petitioners in
their opposition to the motion to dismiss dated May 27, 1968 (pp.
121-22, rec.) in the lower court, but they set up the defense 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
159
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 159

Secretary Rafael Salas in a letter dated October 19, 1967 only (p. 76,
rec.).
WE hold 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.
Contrary to the perception of the dissenting opinion, the Court does

not legislate in the instant case. The Court merely applies and gives
effect to the constitutional guarantees of social justice then secured
by Section 5 of Article II and Section 6 of Article XIV of the 1935
Constitution, and now by Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Article II of the
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES of the
1973 Constitution, as amended, and as implemented by Articles
2176, 2177, 2178, 1173, 2201, 2216, 2231 and 2232 of the New
Civil Code of 1950.
To emphasize, the 1935 Constitution declares that:
“Sec. 5. The promotion of social justice to insure the wellbeing and

economic security of all the people should be the concern of the State” (Art.
II).
“Sec. 6. The State shall afford protection to labor, especially to working
women, and minors, and shall regulate the relations
160

between landowner and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry
and in agriculture. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration” (Art.
XIV).
The 1973 Constitution likewise commands the State to “promote

social justice to insure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the
people;” “x x x regulate the use x x x 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); “x
x afford protection to labor, x x x and regulate the relations between
workers and employers x x x, and assure the rights of workers to x x
x just and humane conditions of work” (Sec. 9, Art. II, 1973
Constitution, italics supplied).
The foregoing constitutional guarantees in favor of labor
institutionalized in Section 9 of Article II of the 1973 Constitution
and re-stated as a declaration of basic policy in Article 3 of the New

Labor Code, thus:
“Art. 3. Declaration of basic policy.—The State shall afford protection to

labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless
of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and
employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of
work” (italics supplied).
The aforestated constitutional principles as implemented by the

aforementioned articles of the New Civil Code cannot be impliedly
repealed by the restrictive provisions of Article 173 of the New
Labor Code. Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (before
it was amended by R.A. No. 772 on June 20, 1952), predecessor of
Article 173 of the New Labor Code, has been superseded by the
aforestated provisions of the New Civil Code, a subsequent law,
which took effect on August 30, 1950, which obey the constitutional
mandates of social justice enhancing as they do the rights of the
workers as against their employers. Article 173 of the New Labor
Code seems to
161
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 161

diminish the rights of the workers and therefore collides with the
social justice guarantee of the Constitution and the liberal provisions
of the New Civil Code.
The guarantees of social justice embodied in Sections 6, 7 and 9
of Article II of the 1973 Constitution are statements of legal
principles to be applied and enforced by the courts. Mr. Justice
Robert Jackson in the case of West Virginia State Board of
Education vs. Barnette, with characteristic eloquence, enunciated:
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from
the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of
majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the
outcome of no elections” (319 U.S. 625, 638, 87 L.ed. 1638, italics
supplied).
In case of any doubt which may be engendered by Article 173 of the

New Labor Code, both the New Labor Code and the Civil Code
direct that the doubts should be resolved in favor of the workers and
employees.
Thus, Article 4 of the New Labor Code, otherwise known as

Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, promulgated on May 1,
1974, but which took effect six months thereafter, provides that “all
doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of
this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be
resolved in favor of labor” (Art. 2, Labor Code).
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.”
Before it was amended by Commonwealth Act No. 772 on June
20, 1952, Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act
162

provided:
“Sec. 5. 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
(italics supplied).
“Employers contracting laborers in the Philippine Islands for work
outside the same may stipulate with such laborers that the remedies
prescribed by this Act shall apply exclusively to injuries received outside
the Islands through accidents happening in and during the performance of
the duties of the employment; and all service contracts made in the manner
prescribed in this section shall be presumed to include such agreement.”
Only the second paragraph of Section 5 of the Workmen’s

Compensation Act No. 3428, was amended by Commonwealth Act
No. 772 on June 20, 1952, thus:
“Sec. 5. 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.
“Employers contracting laborers in the Philippine Islands for work
outside the same shall stipulate with such laborers that the remedies
prescribed by this Act shall apply to injuries received outside the Island
through accidents happening in and during the performance of the duties of
the employment. Such stipulation shall not prejudice the right of the
laborers to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the place
where the accident occurs, should such law be more favorable to them (As
amended by section 5 of Republic Act No. 772).”
Article 173 of the New Labor Code does not repeal expressly nor
impliedly the applicable provisions of the New Civil Code, because
said Article 173 provides:
“Art. 173. Exclusiveness of liability.—Unless otherwise provided, the

liability of the State Insurance Fund under this Title shall
163
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 163

be exclusive and in place of all other liabilities of the employer to the

employee, his dependents or anyone otherwise entitled to receive damages
on behalf of the employee or his dependents. The payment of compensation
under this Title shall bar the recovery of benefits as provided for in Section
699 of the Revised Administrative Code, Republic Act Numbered Eleven
hundred sixty-one, as amended, Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred
eighty-six, as amended, Commonwealth Act Numbered Six hundred ten, as
amended, Republic Act Numbered Forty-eight hundred Sixty-four, as
amended, and other laws whose benefits are administered by the System,
during the period of such payment for the same disability or death, and
conversely” (italics supplied).
As above-quoted, Article 173 of the New Labor Code expressly

repealed only Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code, R.A.
No. 1161, as amended, C.A. No. 186, as amended, R.A. No. 610, as
amended, R.A. No. 4864, as amended, and all other laws whose
benefits are administered by the System (referring to the GSIS or
SSS).
Unlike Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as afore-
quoted, Article 173 of the New Labor Code does not even remotely,
much less expressly, repeal the New Civil Code provisions
heretofore quoted.
It is patent, therefore, that recovery under the New Civil Code for
damages arising from negligence, is not barred by Article 173 of the
New Labor Code. And the damages recoverable under the New
Civil Code are not administered by the System provided for by the
New Labor Code, which defines the “System” as referring to the
Government Service Insurance System or the Social Security
System (Art. 167 [c], [d] and [e] of the New Labor Code).
Furthermore, under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, decisions of
the Supreme Court form part of the law of the land.
Article 8 of the New Civil Code provides:
“Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the

Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.”
The Court, through the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, in
People vs. Licera, ruled:
164

“Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines decrees that judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of this
jurisdiction’s legal system. These decisions, although in themselves not
laws, constitute evidence of what the laws mean. The application or
interpretation placed by the Court upon a law is part of the law as of the date
of the enactment of the said law since the Court’s application or
interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that
the construed law purports to carry into effect” (65 SCRA 270, 272-273
[1975]).
WE ruled that judicial decisions of the Supreme Court assume the

same authority as the statute itself (Caltex vs. Palomer, 18 SCRA
247; 124 Phil. 763).
The afore-quoted provisions of Section 5 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, before and after it was amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 772 on June 20, 1952, limited the right of
recovery in favor of the deceased, ailing or injured employee to the
compensation provided for therein. Said Section 5 was not accorded
controlling application by the Supreme Court in the 1970 case of
Pacaña vs. Cebu Autobus Company (32 SCRA 442) when WE ruled
that an injured worker has a choice of either to recover from the
employer the fixed amount set by the Workmen’s Compensation Act
or to prosecute an ordinary civil action against the tortfeasor for
greater damages; but he cannot pursue both courses of action
simultaneously. Said Pacaña case penned by Mr. Justice Teehankee,
applied Article 1711 of the Civil Code as against the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, reiterating the 1969 ruling in the case of
Valencia vs. Manila Yacht Club (28 SCRA 724, June 30, 1969) and
the 1958 case of Esguerra vs. Muñoz Palma (104 Phil. 582), both
penned by Justice J.B.L. Reyes. Said Pacaña case was concurred in
by Justices J.B.L. Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando and Villamor.
Since the first sentence of Article 173 of the New Labor Code is
merely a re-statement of the first paragraph of Section 5 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, and does not even refer,
neither expressly nor impliedly, to the Civil Code as Section 5 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act did, with greater reason said Article

173 must be subject to the
165
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 165

same interpretation adopted in the cases of Pacaña, Valencia and

Esguerra aforementioned as the doctrine in the aforesaid three (3)
cases is faithful to and advances the social justice guarantees
enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
It should be stressed likewise that there is no similar provision on
social justice in the American Federal Constitution, nor in the
various state constitutions of the American Union. Consequently, the
restrictive nature of the American decisions on the Workmen’s
Compensation Act cannot limit the range and compass of OUR
interpretation of our own laws, especially Article 1711 of the New
Civil Code, vis-a-vis Article 173 of the New Labor Code, in relation
to Section 5 of Article II and Section 6 of Article XIV of the 1935
Constitution then, and now Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies of Article II of the 1973 Constitution.
The dissent seems to subordinate the life of the laborer to the
property rights of the employer. The right to life is guaranteed
specifically by the due process clause of the Constitution. To relieve
the employer from liability for the death of his workers arising from
his gross or wanton fault or failure to provide safety devices for the
protection of his employees or workers against the dangers which
are inherent in underground mining, is to deprive the deceased
worker and his heirs of the right to recover indemnity for the loss of
the life of the worker and the consequent loss to his family without
due process of law. The dissent in effect condones and therefore
encourages such gross or wanton neglect on the part of the employer
to comply with his legal obligation to provide safety measures, for
the protection of the life, limb and health of his worker. Even from
the moral viewpoint alone, such attitude is un-Christian.
It is therefore patent that giving effect to the social justice
guarantees of the Constitution, as implemented by the provisions of
the New Civil Code, is not an exercise of the power of law-making,
but is rendering obedience to the mandates of the fundamental law
and the implementing legislation aforementioned.
The Court, to repeat, is not legislating in the instant case.
It is axiomatic that no ordinary statute can override a con-
166
stitutional provision.
The words of Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and
of Article 173 of the New Labor Code subvert the rights of the
petitioners as surviving heirs of the deceased mining employees.
Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Article 173 of
the New Labor Code are retrogressive; because they are a throwback
to the obsolete laissez-faire doctrine of Adam Smith enunciated in
1776 in his treatise Wealth of Nations (Collier’s Encyclopedia, Vol.
21, p. 93, 1964), which has been discarded soon after the close of
the 18th century due to the Industrial Revolution that generated the
machines and other mechanical devices (beginning with Eli
Whitney’s cotton gin of 1793 and Robert Fulton’s steamboat of
1807) for production and transportation which are dangerous to life,
limb and health. The old socio-political-economic philosophy of
live-and-let-live is now superdesed by the benign Christian
shibboleth of live-and-help others to live. Those who profess to be
Christians should not adhere to Cain’s selfish affirmation that he is
not his brother’s keeper. In this our civilization, each one of us is our
brother’s keeper. No man is an island. To assert otherwise is to be as
atavistic and ante-deluvian as the 1837 case of Prisley vs. Fowler (3
MN 1,150 reprint 1030) invoked by the dissent. The Prisley case
was decided in 1837 during the era of economic royalists and robber
barons of America. Only ruthless, unfeeling capitalistics and egoistic
reactionaries continue to pay obeisance to such un-Christian
doctrine. The Prisley rule humiliates man and debases him; because
the decision derisively refers to the lowly worker as “servant” and
utilizes with aristocratic arrogance “master” for “employer.” It robs
man of his inherent dignity and dehumanizes him. To stress this
affront to human dignity, WE only have to restate the quotation from
Prisley, thus: “The mere relation of the master and the servant never
can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care
of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do himself.”
This is the very selfish doctrine that provoked the American Civil
War which generated so much hatred and drew so much precious
blood on American plains and valleys from 1861 to 1864.
“Idolatrous reverence” for the letter of the law sacrifices the
167
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 167

human being. The spirit of the law insures man’s survival and
ennobles him. In the words of Shakespeare, “the letter of the law
killeth; its spirit giveth life.”
It is curious that the dissenting opinion clings to the myth that the
courts cannot legislate.
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.
But about two centuries before Article 9 of the New Civil Code,
the founding fathers of the American Constitution foresaw and
recognized the eventuality that the courts may have to legislate to
supply the omissions or to clarify the ambiguities in the American
Constitution and the statutes.
Thus, Alexander Hamilton pragmatically admits that judicial
legislation may be justified but denies that the power of the Judiciary
to nullify statutes may give rise to Judicial tyranny (The Federalist,
Modern Library, pp. 503-511, 1937 ed.). Thomas Jefferson went
farther to concede that the court is even independent of the Nation
itself (A.F.L. vs. American Sash Company, 1949 335 US 538).
Many of the great expounders of the American Constitution
likewise share the same view. Chief Justice Marshall pronounced:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial department
to say what the law is” (Marbury vs. Madison 1 Cranch 127 1803),
which was re-stated by Chief Justice Hughes when he said that “the
Constitution is what the judge says it is” (Address on May 3, 1907,
quoted by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 9, 1937).
This was
168

reiterated by Justice Cardozo who pronounced that “No doubt the

limits for the judge are narrower. He legislates only between gaps.
He fills the open spaces in the law.” (The Nature of the Judicial
Process, p. 113). In the language of Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone,
“The only limit to the judicial legislation is the restraint of the
judge” (U.S. vs. Butler 297 U.S. 1 Dissenting Opinion, p. 79), which
view is also entertained by Justice Frankfurter and Justice Robert
Jackson. In the rhetoric of Justice Frankfurter, “the courts breathe

life, feeble or strong, into the inert pages of the Constitution and all
statute books.”
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.
The written word is no longer the “sovereign talisman.” In the
epigrammatic language of Mr. Justice Cardozo, “the law has
outgrown its primitive stage of formalism when the precise word
was the sovereign talisman, and every slip was fatal” (Wood vs.
Duff Gordon 222 NW 88; Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial
Process 100). Justice Cardozo warned that: “Sometimes the
conservatism of judges has threatened for an interval to rob the
legislation of its efficacy. x x x Precedents established in those items
exert an unhappy influence even now” (citing Pound, Common Law
and Legislation 21 Harvard Law Review 383, 387).
Finally, Justice Holmes delivered the coup de grace when he
169
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 169

pragmatically admitted, although with a cautionary undertone: “that

judges do and must legislate, but they can do so only interstitially;
they are confined from molar to molecular mo-tions” (Southern
Pacific Company vs. Jensen, 244 US 204 1917). And in the
subsequent case of Springer vs. Government (277 US 188, 210-212,
72 L.ed. 845, 852-853), Justice Holmes pronounced:
“The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields
of black and white. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in
a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other. x x x. When
we come to the fundamental distinctions it is still more obvious that they
must be received with a certain latitude or our government could not go on.
“To make a rule of conduct applicable to an individual who but for such
action would be free from it is to legislate—yet it is what the judges do
whenever they determine which of two competing principles of policy shall
prevail
“x x x x x x x x x
“It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may
disguise it by veiling words we do not and cannot carry out the distinction
between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and
divide the branches into waterlight compartments, were it ever so desirable
to do so, which I am far from believing that it is, or that the Constitution
requires.”
True, there are jurists and legal writers who affirm that judges should
not legislate, but grudgingly concede that in certain cases judges do
legislate. They criticize the assumption by the courts of such law-
making power as dangerous for it may degenerate into Judicial
tyranny. They include Blackstone, Jeremy Bentham, Justice Black,
Justice Harlan, Justice Roberts, Justice David Brewer, Ronald
Dworkin, Rolf Sartorious, Macklin Fleming and Beryl Harold Levy.
But said Justices, jurists or legal commentators, who either deny the
power of the courts to legislate in-between gaps of the law, or decry
the exercise of such power, have not pointed to examples of the
exercise by the courts of such law-making authority in the
interpretation and application of the laws in specific cases that gave
rise to judicial tyranny or oppression or that such judicial legislation
has not protected public interest or in-
170

dividual welfare, particularly the lowly workers or the

underprivileged.
On the other hand, there are numerous decisions interpreting the
Bill of Rights and statutory enactments expanding the scope of such
provisions to protect human rights. Foremost among them is the
doctrine in the cases of Miranda vs. Arizona (384 US 436 1964),
Gideon vs. Wainright (372 US 335), Escubedo vs. Illinois (378 US
478), which guaranteed the accused under custodial investigation his
rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such
rights as even as it protects him against the use of force or
intimidation to extort confession from him. These rights are not
found in the American Bill of Rights. These rights are now
institutionalized in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution.
Only the peace-and-order adherents were critical of the activism of
the American Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Even the definition of identical offenses for purposes of the

double jeopardy provision was developed by American judicial
decisions, not by amendment to the Bill of Rights on double
jeopardy (see Justice Laurel in People vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260, 261-
268). And these judicial decisions have been re-stated in Section 7
of Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as well as in
Section 9 of Rule 117 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. In both
provisions, the second offense is the same as the first offense if the
second offense is an attempt to commit the first or frustration thereof
or necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first offense.
The requisites of double jeopardy are not spelled out in the Bill
of Rights. They were also developed by judicial decisions in the
United States and in the Philippines even before people vs. Ylagan
(58 Phil. 851-853).
Again, the equal protection clause was interpreted in the case of
Plessy vs. Ferguson (163 US 537) as securing to the Negroes equal
but separate facilities, which doctrine was revoked in the case of
Brown vs. Maryland Board of Education (349 US 294), holding that
the equal protection clause means that the Negroes are entitled to
attend the same schools attended by the whites—equal facilities in
the same school—which was extended to public parks and public
buses.
171
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 171

De-segregation, not segregation, is now the governing principle.

Among other examples, the due process clause was interpreted in
the case of People vs. Pomar (46 Phil. 440) by a conservative,
capitalistic court to invalidate a law granting maternity leave to
working women—according primacy to property rights over human
rights. The case of People vs. Pomar is no longer the rule.
As early as 1904, in the case of Lochner vs. New York (198 US
45, 76, 49 L. ed. 937, 949), Justice Holmes had been railing against
the conservatism of Judges perverting the guarantee of due process
to protect property rights as against human rights or social justice for
the working man. The law fixing maximum hours of labor was
invalidated. Justice Holmes was vindicated finally in 1936 in the
case of West Coast Hotel vs. Parish (300 US 377-79; 81 L. ed. 703)
where the American Supreme Court upheld the rights of workers to
social justice in the form of guaranteed minimum wage for women
and minors, working hours not exceeding eight (8) daily, and
maternity leave for women employees.
The power of judicial review and the principle of separation of
powers as well as the rule on political questions have been evolved
and grafted into the American Constitution by judicial decisions
(Marbury vs. Madison, supra; Coleman vs. Miller, 307 US 433, 83

L. ed. 1385; Springer vs. Government, 277 US 210-212, 72 L. ed,
852, 853).
It is noteworthy that Justice Black, who seems to be against
judicial legislation, penned a separate concurring opinion in the case
of Coleman vs. Miller, supra, affirming the doctrine of political
question as beyond the ambit of judicial review. There is nothing in
both the American and Philippine Constitutions expressly providing
that the power of the courts is limited by the principle of separation
of powers and the doctrine on political questions. There are
numerous cases in Philippine jurisprudence applying the doctrines of
separation of powers and political questions and invoking American
precedents.
Unlike the American Constitution, both the 1935 and 1973
Philippine Constitutions expressly vest in the Supreme Court the
power to review the validity or constitutionality of any
172

legislative enactment or executive act.

WHEREFORE, THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER OF
DISMISSAL IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND
THE CASE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS. SHOULD A GREATER AMOUNT OF
DAMAGES BE DECREED IN FAVOR OF HEREIN
PETITIONERS, THE PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE TO THEM
PURSUANT TO THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT
SHALL BE DEDUCTED. NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Plana, Escolin, De la Fuente,

Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., I concur in the dissent of Justice Gutierrez.
Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.
Abad Santos and Relova, JJ., no part.
Melencio-Herrera, J., dissents in a separate opinion.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., please see attached dissenting opinion.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:
This case involves a complaint for damages for the death of five
employees of PHILEX Mining Corporation under the general
provisions of the Civil Code. The Civil Code itself, however,

provides for its non-applicability to the complaint. It is specifically
provided in Article 2196 of the Code, found in Title XVIII—
Damages, that:
“COMPENSATION FOR WORKMEN AND OTHER EMPLOYEES IN

CASE OF DEATH, INJURY OR ILLNESS IS REGULATED BY SPECIAL
LAWS.”
Compensation and damages are synonymous. In Esguerra vs.

Muñoz Palma, etc., et al., 104 Phil. 582, 586, Justice J.B.L. Reyes
had said:
“Petitioner also avers that compensation Is not damages. This
173
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 173

argument is but a play on words. The term ‘compensation’ is used in the law
(Act 3812 and Republic Act 772) in the sense of indemnity for damages
suffered, being awarded for a personal injury caused or aggravated by or in
the course of employment. x x x.”
By the very provisions of the Civil Code, it is a “special law”, not

the Code itself, which has to apply to the complaint involved in the
instant case. That “special law”, in reference to the complaint, can
be no other than the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
Even assuming, without conceding, that an employee is entitled
to an election of remedies, as the majority rules, both options cannot
be exercised simultaneously, and the exercise of one will preclude
the exercise of the other. The petitioners had already exercised their
option to come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and they
have already received compensation payable to them under that Act.
Stated differently, the remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act had already become a “finished transaction”.
There are two considerations why it is believed petitioners should
no longer be allowed to exercise the option to sue under the Civil
Code. In the first place, the proceedings under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act have already become the law in regards to the
“election of remedies”, because those proceedings had become a
“finished transaction”.
In the second place, it should be plainly equitable that, if a person
entitled to an “election of remedies” makes a first election and
accepts the benefits thereof, he should no longer be allowed to avail
himself of the second option. At the very least, if he wants to make a
second election, in disregard of the first election he has made, when
he makes the second election he should surrender the benefits he had
obtained under the first election. This was not done in the case
before the Court.
B.
There is full concurrence on my part with the dissenting opinion of

Mr. Justice Gutierrez upholding “the exclusory provision of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act.” I may further add:
174

1. The Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 3428) was

approved on December 10, 1927 and took effect on June
10, 1928. It was patterned from Minnesota and Hawaii
statutes.
“Act No. 3428 was adopted by the Philippine legislature, in Spanish and
some sections of the law were taken from the statutes of Minnesota and
Hawaii, (Chapter 209 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii, 1925).” [Morabe &
Inton, Workmen’s Compensation Act, p. 2]
Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Hawaii, when the Act is

applicable, the remedy under the Act is exclusive. The following is
stated in 1 Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation Text, pp. 266, 267.
“Sec. 112. Hawaii
“Statutory Synopsis—The act is compulsory as to employees in ‘all

industrial employment’ and employees of the territory and its political
subdivisions. (Sections 7480-7481, S.S., Vol. 1, p. 713.)
Compensation is not payable when injury is due to employee’s willful
intention to injure himself or another or to his intoxication. (Sec. 7482, S.S.,
p. 713.)
When the act is applicable the remedy thereunder is exclusive. (Sec.
7483, S.S., p. 714.)”
2. In providing for exclusiveness of the remedy under our

Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Philippine Legislature
worded the first paragraph of Section 5 of the Act as
follows:

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.”
(Paragraphing and italics supplied)
In regards to the intent of the Legislature under the foregoing

provision:
175
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 175

“A cardinal rule in the interpretation of statutes is that the meaning and

intention of the law-making body must be sought, first of all, in the words of
the statute itself, read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly-
accepted and most obvious significations, according to good and approved
usage and without resorting to forced or subtle construction. Courts,
therefore, as a rule, cannot presume that the law-making body does not
know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. Consequently, the
grammatical reading of a statute must be presumed to yield its correct
sense.” (Espino vs. Cleofe, 52 SCRA 92, 98) [Italics supplied]
3. The original second paragraph of Section 5 provided:
“Employers contracting laborers in the Philippine Islands for work outside

the same shall stipulate with such laborers that the remedies prescribed by
this Act shall apply exclusively to injuries received outside the Islands
the employment.” (Italics supplied)
The use of the word “exclusively is a further confirmation of the

exclusory provision of the Act, subject only to exceptions which
may be provided in the Act itself.
4. It might be mentioned that, within the Act itself, provision

is made for remedies other than within the Act itself. Thus,
Section 6, in part, provides:
“SEC. 6. Liability of third parties.—In case an employee suffers an injury

for which compensation is due under this Act by any other person besides
his employer, it shall be optional with such injured employee either to claim
compensation from his employer, under this Act, or sue such other person
for damages, in accordance with law; x x x” (Italics supplied)
If the legislative intent under the first paragraph of Section 5 were to

allow the injured employee to sue his employer under the Civil
Code, the legislator could very easily have formulated the said first
paragraph of Section 5 according to the pattern of Section 6. That
that was not done shows the legislative intent not to allow any
option to an employee to sue the employer under the Civil Code for
injuries compensable under the Act.
176

5. There should be no question but that the original first

paragraph of Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, formulated in 1927, provided that an injured worker or
employee, or his heirs, if entitled to compensation under the
Act, cannot have independent recourse neither to the Civil
Code nor to any other law relative to the liability of the
employer. After 1927, there were occasions when the
legislator had the opportunity to amend the first paragraph
of Section 5 such that the remedies under the Act would not
be exclusive; yet, the legislator refrained from doing so.
That shows the legislative’s continuing intent to maintain
the exclusory provision of the first paragraph of Section 5
unless otherwise provided in the Act itself.
(a) The original second paragraph of Section 5 provided:
“Employers contracting laborers in the Philippine Islands for work outside

the same shall stipulate with such laborers that the remedies prescribed by
this Act shall apply (exclusively) to injuries received outside the Islands
the employment (and all service contracts made in the manner prescribed in
this section be presumed to include such agreement).”
On June 20, 1952, through RA 772, the foregoing second paragraph

was amended with the elimination of the underlined words in
parentheses, and the addition of this sentence at the end of the
paragraph:
“Such stipulation shall not prejudice the right of the laborers to the benefits
of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the place where the accident
occurs, should such law be more favorable to them.” (Italics supplied)
It will be seen that, within the Act itself, the exclusory character of
the Act was amended. At that time, if he had so desired, the
legislator could have amended the first paragraph of Section 5 so
that the employee would have the option to sue the employer under
the Act, or under the Civil Code, should the latter be more favorable
to him.
(b) The Workmen’s Compensation Act, which took effect in

1927, grants compensation to an injured employee without
177
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 177

regard to the presence or absence of negligence on the part

of the employer. The compensation is deemed an expense
chargeable to the industry (Murillo vs. Mendoza, 66 Phil.
689 [1938]).
In time, it must have been thought that it was inequitable to have the
amount of compensation, caused by negligence on the part of the
employer, to be the same amount payable when the employer was
1
not negligent. Based on that thinking, Section 4-A was included
into the Act, on June 20, 1952, through RA 772. Said Section 4-A
increased the compensation payable by 50% in case there was
negligence on the part of the employer. That additional section
evidenced the intent of the legislator not to give an option to an
employee, injured with negligence on the part of the employer, to
sue the latter under the provisions of the Civil Code.
On June 20, 1964, Section 4-A was amended (insubstantially) by
RA 4119. The legislator was again given the opportunity to provide,
but he did not, the option to an employee to sue under the Act or
under the Civil Code.
When a Court gives effect to a statute not in accordance with the
intent of the lawmaker, the Court is unjustifiably legislating.
It is in view of the foregoing that I vote for affirmation of the trial
Court’s dismissal of the Complaint.
_______________
1 SEC. 4-A. Right to additional compensation.—In case of the employee’s death,

injury or sickness due to the failure of the employer to comply with any law, or with
any order, rule or regulation of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission or the
Bureau of Labor Standards or should the employer violate the provisions of Republic
Act Numbered Six hundred seventy-nine and its amendments or fail to install and
maintain safety appliances, or take other precautions for the prevention of accidents
or occupational disease, he shall be liable to pay an additional compensation equal to
fifty per centum of the compensation fixed in this Act.
178

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: DISSENTING OPINION
To grant the petition and allow the victims of industrial accidents to

file damages suits based on torts would be a radical innovation not
only contrary to the express provisions of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act but a departure from the principles evolved in the
long history of workmen’s compensation. At the very least, it should
be the legislature and not this Court which should remove the
exclusory provision of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, a provision reiterated in the
present Labor Code on employees’ compensation. Workmen’s
compensation evolved to remedy the evils associated with the
situation in the early years of the industrial revolution when injured
workingmen had to rely on damage suits to get recompense.
Before workmen’s compensation, an injured worker seeking
damages would have to prove in a tort suit that his employer was
either negligent or in bad faith, that his injury was caused by the
employer and not a fellow worker, and that he was not guilty of
contributory negligence. The employer could employ not only his
wealth in defeating the claim for damages but a host of common law
defenses available to him as well. The worker was supposed to know
what he entered into when he accepted employment. As stated in the
leading case of Priestley v. Fowler (3 M. & W. 1, 150 Reprint 1030)
decided in 1837 “the mere relation of the master and the servant
never can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more
care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of
himself.” By entering into a contract of employment, the worker was
deemed to accept the risks of employment that he should discover
and guard against himself.
The problems associated with the application of the fellow
servant rule, the assumption of risk doctrine, the principle of
contributory negligence, and the many other defenses so easily
raised in protracted damage suits illustrated the need for a system
whereby workers had only to prove the fact of covered employment
and the fact of injury arising from, employment in order to be
compensated.
179
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 179

The need for a compensation scheme where liability is created solely

by statute and made compulsory and where the element of fault—
either the fault of the employer or the fault of the employee—is
disregarded became obvious. Another objective was to have
simplified, expeditious, inexpensive, and non-litigious procedures so
that victims of industrial accidents could more readily, if not
automatically, receive compensation for work-related injuries.
Inspite of common law defenses to defeat a claim being

recognized, employers’ liability acts were a major step in the desired
direction. However, employers liability legislation proved
inadequate. Legislative reform led to the workmen’s compensation.
I cite the above familiar background because workmen’s
compensation represents a compromise. In return for the near
certainty of receiving a sum of money fixed by law, the injured
worker gives up the right to subject the employer to a tort suit for
huge amounts of damages. Thus, liability not only disregards the
element of fault but it is also a pre-determined amount based on the
wages of the injured worker and in certain cases, the actual cost of
rehabilitation. The worker does not receive the total damages for his
pain and suffering which he could otherwise claim in a civil suit.
The employer is required to act swiftly on compensation claims. An
administrative agency supervises the program. And because the
overwhelming mass of workingmen are benefited by the
compensation system, individual workers who may want to sue for
big amounts of damages must yield to the interests of their entire
working class.
The nature of the compensation principle is explained as follows:
“An appreciation of the nature of the compensation principle is essential to

an understanding of the acts and the cases interpreting them.
“By the turn of the century it was apparent that the toll of industrial
accidents of both the avoidable and unavoidable variety had become
enormous, and government was faced with the problem of who was to pay
for the human wreckage wrought by the dangers of modern industry. If the
accident was avoidable and could be at-
180

tributed to the carelessness of the employer, existing tort principles offered

some measure of redress. Even here, however, the woeful inadequacy of the
fault principle was manifest. The uncertainty of the outcome of torts
litigation in court placed the employee at a substantial disadvantage. So long
as liability depended on fault there could be no recovery until the finger of
blame had been pointed officially at the employer or his agents. In most
cases both the facts and the law were uncertain. The witnesses, who were
usually fellow workers of the victim, were torn between friendship or
loyalty to their class, on the one hand, and fear of reprisal by the employer,
on the other. The expense and delay of litigation often prompted the injured
employee to accept a compromise settlement for a fraction of the full value
of his claim. Even if suit were successfully prosecuted, a large share of the
proceeds of the judgment were exacted as contingent fees by counsel. Thus
the employer against whom judgment was cast often paid a substantial
damage bill, while only a part of this enured to the benefit of the injured
employee or his dependents. The employee’s judgment was nearly always
too little and too late.
xxx xxx xxx
“Workmen’s Compensation rests upon the economic principle that those
persons who enjoy the product of a business—whether it be in the form of
goods or services—should ultimately bear the cost of the injuries or deaths
that are incident to the manufacture, preparation and distribution of the
product. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
“Under this approach the element of personal fault either disappears
entirely or is subordinated to broader economic considerations. The
employer absorbs the cost of accident loss only initially; it is expected that
this cost will eventually pass down the stream of commerce in the form of
increase price until it is spread in dilution among the ultimate consumers. So
long as each competing unit in a given industry is uniformly affected, no
producer can gain any substantial competitive advantage or suffer any
appreciable loss by reason of the general adoption of the compensation
principle.
“In order that the compensation principle may operate properly and with
fairness to all parties it is essential that the anticipated accident cost be
predictable and that it be fixed at a figure that will not disrupt too violently
the traffic in the product of the industry affected. Thus predictability and
moderateness of cost are necessary from the broad economic viewpoint. x x
x.
“Compensation, then, differs from the conventional damage suit in two
important respects: Fault on the part of either employer or
181
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 181

employee is eliminated; and compensation payable according to a definitely

limited schedule is substituted for damages. All compensation acts alike
work these two major changes, irrespective of how they may differ in other
particulars.
‘Compensation, when regarded from the viewpoint of employer and
employee represents a compromise in which each party surrenders certain
advantages in order to gain others which are of more importance both to him
and to society. The employer gives up the immunity he otherwise would
enjoy in cases where he is not at fault, and the employee surrenders his
former right to full damages and accepts instead a more modest claim for
bare essentials, represented by compensation.
“The importance of the compromise character of compensation cannot
be overemphasized. The statutes vary a great deal with reference to the
proper point of balance. The amount of weekly compensation payments and
the length of the period during which compensation is to be paid are matters
concerning which the acts differ considerably. The interpretation of any

compensation statute will be influenced greatly by the court’s reaction to the
basic point of compromise established in the Act. If the court feels that the
basic compromise unduly favors the employer, it will be tempted to restore
what it regards as a proper balance by adopting an interpretation that favors
the worker. In this way, a compensation act drawn in a spirit of extreme
conservatism may be transformed by a sympathetic court into a fairly liberal
instrument; and conversely, an act that greatly favors the laborer may be so
interpreted by the courts that employers can have little reason to complain.
Much of the unevenness and apparent conflict in compensation decisions
throughout the various jurisdictions must be attributed to this.” (Malone &
Plant, Workmen’s Compensation, American Casebook Series, pp. 63-65).
The schedule of compensation, the rates of payments, the

compensable injuries and diseases, the premiums paid by employers
to the present system, the actuarial stability of the trust fund and
many other interrelated parts have all been carefully studied before
the integrated scheme was enacted into law. We have a system
whose parts must mesh harmoniously with one another if it is to
succeed. The basic theory has to be f allowed.
If this Court disregards this totality of the scheme and in a spirit
of generosity recasts some parts of the system without touching the
related others, the entire structure is endangered.
182

For instance, I am personally against stretching the law and allowing

payment of compensation for contingencies never envisioned to be
compensable when the law was formulated. Certainly, only harmful
results to the principle of workmen’s compensation can arise if
workmen, whom the law allows to receive employment
compensation, can still elect to file damage suits for industrial
accidents. It was precisely for this reason that Section 5 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, which reads:

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 x x x.”
Article 173 of the Labor Code also provides:
“ART. 173. Exclusiveness of liability.—Unless otherwise provided, the

liability of the State Insurance Fund under this Title shall be exclusive and
in place of all other liabilities of the employer to the employee, his

dependents or anyone otherwise entitled to receive damages on behalf of the
employee or his dependents.”
I am against the Court assuming the role of legislator in a matter

calling for actuarial studies and public hearings. If employers
already required to contribute to the State Insurance Fund will still
have to bear the cost of damage suits or get insurance for that
purpose, a major study will be necessary. The issue before us is
more far reaching than the interests of the poor victims and their
families. All workers covered by workmen’s compensation and all
employers who employ covered employees are affected. Even as I
have deepest sympathies for the victims, I regret that I am
constrained to dissent from the majority opinion.
Note.—The rules in the title on Damages in the Civil Code are

applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157 (Article
2195) as well as those laid down in other laws, except compensation
for workmen and other employees in case of death, injury or illness,
and other special provisions on damages for-
183
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 183

mulated in other parts of the Civil Code (Article 2196). However,

the principles of the general law on damages insofar as they are not
inconsistent with the Civil Code are applicable (Article 2198).
——o0o——
184

Are Justices Lawmakers, Too?
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation 136 SCRA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation 136 SCRA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation 136 SCRA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136

No. L-30642. April 30, 1985.*

PERFECTO S. FLORESCA, in his own behalf and on behalf of the

LYDIA CARAMAT VDA. DE MARTINEZ in her own behalf and

SALUSTIANA ASPIRAS VDA. DE OBRA, in her own behalf and

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

LYDIA CULBENGAN VDA. DE VILLAR, in her own behalf and

DOLORES LOLITA ADER VDA. DE LANUZA, in her own behalf

EMERENCIANA JOSE VDA. DE ISLA, in her own behalf and on

Jurisdiction; Workmen’s Compensation; An ordinary court has

VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 143

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

Same; Same; Same; Heirs of deceased miners who accepted beneﬁts

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 145

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

adopted in the cases of Pacaña, Valencia and Esguerra aforementioned as

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

been exploded.—That myth had been exploded by Article 9 of the New

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:

Statutes; Workmen’s Compensation; Actions; Damages; The WCA is a

VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 147

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

employer.—Even assuming without conceding, that an employee is entitled

exclusory provision of the Act, subject only to exceptions which may be

GUTIERREZ, JR., J., dissenting:

Workmen’s Compensation; Damages; Actions; Statutes; The workmen’s

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

PETITION to review the order of the Court of First Instance of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This is a petition to review the order of the former Court of First

VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 149

promulgated by the Government pursuant thereto, allowed great amount of

the rest, 21 in number, including those referred to in paragraph 7

A motion to dismiss dated May 14, 1968 was ﬁled by Philex

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act 3428, as amended by RA 772)

“Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

After a reply and a rejoinder thereto were ﬁled, respondent Judge

VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 151

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFFS-

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

allegations in their complaint including those contained in the

“SEC. 5. Exclusive right to compensation.—The rights and remedies

Compensation Commission,” subject to appeal to the Supreme

VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 153

character of recoveries under the Workmen’s Compensation Act;

“Whether the action of an injured employee or worker or that of his heirs in

There are divergent opinions in this case. Justice Lazaro is of the

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

employee for work-connected injury or accident is exclusive in

VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 155

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

Furthermore, Articles 2216 et seq., Civil Code, allow the payment of

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the wrongful invasion of his rights. It is the indemnity recoverable