Floresca V Philex
Uploaded by
LouFloresca V Philex
Uploaded by
LouCase: Floresca v Philex Mining Corp.
Topic: Workmen’s Compensation Act
FACTS
Petitioners Perfecto Floresca et al were the heirs of the deceased employees of the Philex Mining
Corporation, who, while working at its copper mines undergound operations in Tuba, Benguet, died
due to the cave-in which left them buried in the tunnels. The petitioners alleged that Philex was in
violation of government rules and regulations and was negligent in failing to take the required
precautions to protect the lives of its employees. Philex allegedly allowed great amount of water and
mud to accumulate in an open pit area which eventually led to the collapse of all underground
supports.
Philex filed a motion to dismiss and alleged that the causes of action were covered by the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, to which the trial court had no jurisdiction. This was countered by the petitioners,
saying that the causes of action were based on the provisions of the Civil Code on damages.
Respondent Judge eventually dismissed the 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.
Petitioners went before the SC and argued that it was error for the lower court to dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction and for failing to distinguish between claims for damages under the Civil Code and
claims for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the heirs of the deceased have a right of selection between availing themselves of the
worker’s right under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and suing in the regular courts under the Civil
Code for higher damages (actual, moral and exemplary) from the employers by virtue of that
negligence or fault of the employers or whether they may avail themselves cumulatively of both
actions. YES
RULING
The court held that although the other petitioners had received the benefits under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, such may not preclude them from bringing an action before the regular court
because they became cognizant of the fact that Philex has been remiss in its contractual obligations
with the deceased miners only after receiving compensation under the Act. Had petitioners been
aware of said violation of government rules and regulations by Philex, and of its negligence, they
would not have sought redress under the Workmen’s Compensation Commission which awarded a
lesser amount for compensation. The choice of the first remedy was based on ignorance or a mistake
of fact, which nullifies the choice as it was not an intelligent choice. The case should therefore be
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. However, should the petitioners be successful
in their bid before the lower court, the payments made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act
should be deducted from the damages that may be decreed in their favor.
NOTES