PERFECTO S. FLORESCA, et. al. vs.

PHILEX MINING CORPORATION and HON. JESUS P. MORFE, Presiding Judge of

Branch XIII, Court of First Instance of Manila

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

ROCHE, CHRISTINE I.

Judicial Legislation

MAKASIAR, J.:

FACTS:

The heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation filed a case against Philex
Mining because the company negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precaution
for the protection of the lives of its men which resulted to their death. According to the
complaint, Philex Mining Corporation failed to take the required precautions for the due
protection of the lives of its men working underground, for abandoning the rescue operation, and
for failing to provide its men necessary security for the protection of their lives. Respondent
Philex Minning alleged that the cause of action filed by the petitioners are based on an industrial
accident which are covered by the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act but petitioners
claimed 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. Furthermore, they allege that
damages under the Civil Code refer to the employer’s liability for reckless and wanton
negligence resulting in the death of its employees. But Philex asserts that these injuries
compensable under the provisions of Section 5 and Section 46 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act. They also contend that the heirs of the deceased employees submitted notices and claims for
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act thus it precludes them from bringing
another action.

ISSUE:

WON petitioners have a right of choice of action between availing of the worker’s right under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act and suing under the Civil Code for higher damages

RULING:

The Court held that although they had already received their claims under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, they are not prevented 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. There was
a mistake of fact on the choice of the first remedy because they learned in the official report that
established the criminal negligence and violation by Philex; they would not have sought redress
under the Workmen’s Compensation. The Court merely applies and gives effect the guarantees
of social justice when it held that the petitioners can bring an action before a regular court even
though they already had received claims; Section 5 of the Workmen Compensation Act limited
the right of recovery in favor of the deceased, ailing or injured employee the compensation
provided therein.

In addition, the dissenting opinion of the amici curiae in this case, 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. 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.