Republic of the Philippines MORFE, Presiding Judge of Branch XIII, Court of First

SUPREME COURT Instance of Manila, respondents.

Manila
Rodolfo C. Pacampara for petitioners.
EN BANC
Tito M. Villaluna for respondents.
G.R. 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 MAKASIAR, J.:
ERLINDA FLORESCA-GABUYO, PEDRO S. FLORESCA,
JR., CELSO S. FLORESCA, MELBA S. FLORESCA, JUDITH This is a petition to review the order of the former Court of First
S. FLORESCA and CARMEN S. FLORESCA; Instance of Manila, Branch XIII, dated December 16, 1968
dismissing petitioners' complaint for damages on the ground of
LYDIA CARAMAT VDA. DE MARTINEZ in her own behalf lack of jurisdiction.
and on behalf of her minor children LINDA, ROMEO,
ANTONIO JEAN and ELY, all surnamed Martinez; and Petitioners are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex
DANIEL MARTINEZ and TOMAS MARTINEZ; Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Philex), who,
while working at its copper mines underground operations at
SALUSTIANA ASPIRAS VDA. DE OBRA, in her own behalf Tuba, Benguet on June 28, 1967, died as a result of the cave-
and on behalf of her minor children JOSE, ESTELA, in that buried them in the tunnels of the mine. Specifically, the
JULITA SALUD and DANILO, all surnamed OBRA; complaint alleges that Philex, in violation of government rules
and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the
LYDIA CULBENGAN VDA. DE VILLAR, in her own behalf required precautions for the protection of the lives of its men
and on behalf of her minor children EDNA, GEORGE and working underground. Portion of the complaint reads:
LARRY III, all surnamed VILLAR;
xxx xxx xxx
DOLORES LOLITA ADER VDA. DE LANUZA, in her own
behalf and on behalf of her minor children EDITHA, 9. That for sometime prior and up to June
ELIZABETH, DIVINA, RAYMUNDO, NESTOR and AURELIO, 28,1967, the defendant PHILEX, with gross
JR. all surnamed LANUZA; and reckless negligence and imprudence and
deliberate failure to take the required
EMERENCIANA JOSE VDA. DE ISLA, in her own behalf precautions for the due protection of the lives
and on behalf of her minor children JOSE, LORENZO, JR., of its men working underground at the time,
MARIA, VENUS and FELIX, all surnamed ISLA, petitioners,  and in utter violation of the laws and the rules
vs. and regulations duly promulgated by the
PHILEX MINING CORPORATION and HON. JESUS P. Government pursuant thereto, allowed great
amount of water and mud to accumulate in an 13. That defendant PHILEX not only violated
open pit area at the mine above Block 43-S-1 the law and the rules and regulations duly
which seeped through and saturated the 600 ft. promulgated by the duly constituted authorities
column of broken ore and rock below it, as set out by the Special Committee above
thereby exerting tremendous pressure on the referred to, in their Report of investigation,
working spaces at its 4300 level, with the result pages 7-13, Annex 'B' hereof, but also failed
that, on the said date, at about 4 o'clock in the completely to provide its men working
afternoon, with the collapse of all underground underground the necessary security for the
supports due to such enormous pressure, protection of their lives notwithstanding the fact
approximately 500,000 cubic feet of broken that it had vast financial resources, it having
ores rocks, mud and water, accompanied by made, during the year 1966 alone, a total
surface boulders, blasted through the tunnels operating income of P 38,220,254.00, or net
and flowed out and filled in, in a matter of earnings, after taxes of P19,117,394.00, as per
approximately five (5) minutes, the its llth Annual Report for the year ended
underground workings, ripped timber supports December 31, 1966, and with aggregate assets
and carried off materials, machines and totalling P 45,794,103.00 as of December 31,
equipment which blocked all avenues of exit, 1966;
thereby trapping within its tunnels of all its men
above referred to, including those named in the xxx xxx xxx
next preceding paragraph, represented by the
plaintiffs herein; (pp. 42-44, rec.)

10. That out of the 48 mine workers who were A motion to dismiss dated May 14, 1968 was filed by Philex
then working at defendant PHILEX's mine on alleging that the causes of action of petitioners based on an
the said date, five (5) were able to escape from industrial accident are covered by the provisions of the
the terrifying holocaust; 22 were rescued within Workmen's Compensation Act (Act 3428, as amended by RA
the next 7 days; and the rest, 21 in number, 772) and that the former Court of First Instance has no
including those referred to in paragraph 7 jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners filed an opposition dated
hereinabove, were left mercilessly to their fate, May 27, 1968 to the said motion to dismiss claiming that the
notwithstanding the fact that up to then, a great causes of action are not based on the provisions of the
many of them were still alive, entombed in the Workmen's Compensation Act but on the provisions of the Civil
tunnels of the mine, but were not rescued due Code allowing the award of actual, moral and exemplary
to defendant PHILEX's decision to abandon damages, particularly:
rescue operations, in utter disregard of its
bounden legal and moral duties in the
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
premises;
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
xxx xxx xxx done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
 pre- existing contractual relation between the On December 16, 1968, respondent Judge dismissed the case
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed for lack of jurisdiction and ruled that in accordance with the
by the provisions of this Chapter. established jurisprudence, the Workmen's Compensation
Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over damage or
Art. 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to compensation claims for work-connected deaths or injuries of
1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. workmen or employees, irrespective of whether or not the
employer was negligent, adding that if the employer's
(b) Art. 1173—The fault or negligence of the negligence results in work-connected deaths or injuries, the
obligor consists in the omission of that employer shall, pursuant to Section 4-A of the Workmen's
diligence which is required by the nature of the Compensation Act, pay additional compensation equal to 50%
obligation and corresponds with the of the compensation fixed in the Act.
circumstances of the persons, of the time and
of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, Petitioners thus filed the present petition.
the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2 shall apply. In their brief, petitioners raised the following assignment of
errors:
Art. 2201. x x x x x x x x x
I
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton
attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING
damages which may be reasonably attributed THE PLAINTIFFS- PETITIONERS'
to the non-performance of the obligation. COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages II

may be granted if the defendant acted with
gross negligence. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO
CONSIDER THE CLEAR DISTINCTION
After a reply and a rejoinder thereto were filed, respondent BETWEEN CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES UNDER
Judge issued an order dated June 27, 1968 dismissing the THE CIVIL CODE AND CLAIMS FOR
case on the ground that it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction COMPENSATION UNDER THE WORKMEN'S
of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. On petitioners' COMPENSATION ACT.
motion for reconsideration of the said order, respondent Judge,
on September 23, 1968, reconsidered and set aside his order A
of June 27, 1968 and allowed Philex to file an answer to the
complaint. Philex moved to reconsider the aforesaid order In the first assignment of error, petitioners argue that the lower
which was opposed by petitioners. 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 SEC. 46. Jurisdiction.— The Workmen's
2231, and not on the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall have
Compensation Act. They point out that the complaint alleges exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims
gross and brazen negligence on the part of Philex in failing to for compensation under the Workmen's
take the necessary security for the protection of the lives of its Compensation Act, subject to appeal to the
employees working underground. They also assert that since Supreme Court, ...
Philex opted to file a motion to dismiss in the court a quo, the
allegations in their complaint including those contained in the Philex cites the case of Manalo vs. Foster Wheeler (98 Phil.
annexes are deemed admitted. 855 [1956]) where it was held that "all claims of workmen
against their employer for damages due to accident suffered in
In the second assignment of error, petitioners asseverate that the course of employment shall be investigated and
respondent Judge failed to see the distinction between the adjudicated by the Workmen's Compensation Commission,"
claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Act and the claims for damages based on gross negligence of
Philex under the Civil Code. They point out that workmen's Philex maintains that the fact that an employer was negligent,
compensation refers to liability for compensation for loss does not remove the case from the exclusive character of
resulting from injury, disability or death of the working man recoveries under the Workmen's Compensation Act; because
through industrial accident or disease, without regard to the Section 4-A of the Act provides an additional compensation in
fault or negligence of the employer, while the claim for case the employer fails to comply with the requirements of
damages under the Civil Code which petitioners pursued in the safety as imposed by law to prevent accidents. In fact, it points
regular court, refers to the employer's liability for reckless and out that Philex voluntarily paid the compensation due the
wanton negligence resulting in the death of the employees and petitioners and all the payments have been accepted in behalf
for which the regular court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the of the deceased miners, except the heirs of Nazarito Floresca
same. who insisted that they are entitled to a greater amount of
damages under the Civil Code.
On the other hand, Philex asserts that work-connected injuries
are compensable exclusively under the provisions of Sections In the hearing of this case, then Undersecretary of Labor Israel
5 and 46 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which read: Bocobo, then Atty. Edgardo Angara, now President of the
University of the Philippines, Justice Manuel Lazaro, as
SEC. 5. Exclusive right to compensation.—The corporate counsel and Assistant General Manager of the GSIS
rights and remedies granted by this Act to an Legal Affairs Department, and Commissioner on Elections,
employee by reason of a personal injury formerly UP Law Center Director Froilan Bacungan, appeared
entitling him to compensation shall exclude all as amici curiae and thereafter, submitted their respective
other rights and remedies accruing to the memoranda.
employee, his personal representatives,
dependents or nearest of kin against the The issue to be resolved as WE stated in the resolution of
employer under the Civil Code and other laws November 26, 1976, is:
because of said injury ...
 Whether the action of an injured employee or provided for under the Act, they are no longer entitled to avail
worker or that of his heirs in case of his death themselves of the remedy provided for under the Civil Code by
under the Workmen's Compensation Act is filing an action for higher damages in the regular court, and
exclusive, selective or cumulative, that is to vice versa.
say, whether his or his heirs' action is
exclusively restricted to seeking the limited On August 3, 1978, petitioners-heirs of deceased employee
compensation provided under the Workmen's Nazarito Floresca filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
Compensation Act or whether they have a right they have amicably settled their claim with respondent Philex.
of selection or choice of action between In the resolution of September 7, 1978, WE dismissed the
availing of the worker's right under the petition only insofar as the aforesaid petitioners are connected,
Workmen's Compensation Act and suing in the it appearing that there are other petitioners in this case.
regular courts under the Civil Code for higher
damages (actual, moral and/or exemplary) from WE hold that the former Court of First Instance has jurisdiction
the employer by virtue of negligence (or fault) to try the case,
of the employer or of his other employees or
whether they may avail cumulatively of both
It should be underscored that petitioners' complaint is not for
actions, i.e., collect the limited compensation
compensation based on the Workmen's Compensation Act but
under the Workmen's Compensation Act and
a complaint for damages (actual, exemplary and moral) in the
sue in addition for damages in the regular
total amount of eight hundred twenty-five thousand
courts.
(P825,000.00) pesos. Petitioners did not invoke the provisions
of the Workmen's Compensation Act to entitle them to
There are divergent opinions in this case. Justice Lazaro is of compensation thereunder. In fact, no allegation appeared in
the opinion that an injured employee or worker, or the heirs in the complaint that the employees died from accident arising
case of his death, may initiate a complaint to recover damages out of and in the course of their employments. The complaint
(not compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act) instead alleges gross and reckless negligence and deliberate
with the regular court on the basis of negligence of an failure on the part of Philex to protect the lives of its workers as
employer pursuant to the Civil Code provisions. Atty. Angara a consequence of which a cave-in occurred resulting in the
believes otherwise. He submits that the remedy of an injured death of the employees working underground. Settled is the
employee for work-connected injury or accident is exclusive in rule that in ascertaining whether or not the cause of action is in
accordance with Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation the nature of workmen's compensation claim or a claim for
Act, while Atty. Bacungan's position is that the action is damages pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code, the test
selective. He opines that the heirs of the employee in case of is the averments or allegations in the complaint (Belandres vs.
his death have a right of choice to avail themselves of the Lopez Sugar Mill, Co., Inc., 97 Phil. 100).
benefits provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act or
to sue in the regular court under the Civil Code for higher
In the present case, there exists between Philex and the
damages from the employer by virtue of negligence of the
deceased employees a contractual relationship. The alleged
latter. Atty. Bocobo's stand is the same as that of Atty.
gross and reckless negligence and deliberate failure that
Bacungan and adds that once the heirs elect the remedy
amount to bad faith on the part of Philex, constitute a breach of
contract for which it may be held liable for damages. The based on any theory of actionable wrong on the part of the
provisions of the Civil Code on cases of breach of contract employer (99 C.J.S. 36).
when there is fraud or bad faith, read:
In other words, under the compensation acts, the employer is
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the liable to pay compensation benefits for loss of income, as long
court may award exemplary damages if the as the death, sickness or injury is work-connected or work-
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, aggravated, even if the death or injury is not due to the fault of
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. the employer (Murillo vs. Mendoza, 66 Phil. 689). On the other
hand, damages are awarded to one as a vindication of the
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the wrongful invasion of his rights. It is the indemnity recoverable
damages for which the obligor who acted in by a person who has sustained injury either in his person,
good faith is able shall be those that are the property or relative rights, through the act or default of another
natural and probable consequences of the (25 C.J.S. 452).
breach of the obligation, and which the parties
have foreseen or could have reasonably The claimant for damages under the Civil Code has the burden
foreseen at the time the obligation was of proving the causal relation between the defendant's
constituted. negligence and the resulting injury as well as the damages
suffered. While under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there
In cases of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton is a presumption in favor of the deceased or injured employee
attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all that the death or injury is work-connected or work-aggravated;
damages which may be reasonably attributed and the employer has the burden to prove otherwise (De los
to the non-performance of the obligation. Angeles vs. GSIS, 94 SCRA 308; Carino vs. WCC, 93 SCRA
551; Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. vs. WCC, 60 SCRA 228).
Furthermore, Articles 2216 et seq., Civil Code, allow the
payment of all kinds of damages, as assessed by the court. The claim of petitioners that the case is not cognizable by the
Workmen's Compensation Commission then, now Employees
The rationale in awarding compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Commission, is strengthened by the fact that
Compensation Act differs from that in giving damages under unlike in the Civil Code, the Workmen's Compensation Act did
the Civil Code. The compensation acts are based on a theory not contain any provision for an award of actual, moral and
of compensation distinct from the existing theories of exemplary damages. What the Act provided was merely the
damages, payments under the acts being made as right of the heirs to claim limited compensation for the death in
compensation and not as damages (99 C.J.S. 53). the amount of six thousand (P6,000.00) pesos plus burial
Compensation is given to mitigate the harshness and expenses of two hundred (P200.00) pesos, and medical
insecurity of industrial life for the workman and his family. expenses when incurred (Sections 8, 12 and 13, Workmen's
Hence, an employer is liable whether negligence exists or not Compensation Act), and an additional compensation of only
since liability is created by law. Recovery under the Act is not 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 In Pacaña WE said:
sought to be recovered is over and above that which was
provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act and which In the analogous case of Esguerra vs. Munoz
cannot be granted by the Commission. Palma, involving the application of Section 6 of
the Workmen's Compensation Act on the
Moreover, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, injured workers' right to sue third- party
compensation benefits should be paid to an employee who tortfeasors in the regular courts, Mr. Justice
suffered an accident not due to the facilities or lack of facilities J.B.L. Reyes, again speaking for the Court,
in the industry of his employer but caused by factors outside pointed out that the injured worker has the
the industrial plant of his employer. Under the Civil Code, the choice of remedies but cannot pursue both
liability of the employer, depends on breach of contract or tort. courses of action simultaneously and thus
The Workmen's Compensation Act was specifically enacted to balanced the relative advantage of recourse
afford protection to the employees or workmen. It is a social under the Workmen's Compensation Act as
legislation designed to give relief to the workman who has against an ordinary action.
been the victim of an accident causing his death or ailment or
injury in the pursuit of his employment (Abong vs. WCC, 54 As applied to this case, petitioner Esguerra
SCRA 379). cannot maintain his action for damages against
the respondents (defendants below), because
WE now come to the query as to whether or not the injured he has elected to seek compensation under the
employee or his heirs in case of death have a right of selection Workmen's Compensation Law, and his claim
or choice of action between availing themselves of the (case No. 44549 of the Compensation
worker's right under the Workmen's Compensation Act and Commission) was being processed at the time
suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher he filed this action in the Court of First
damages (actual, moral and exemplary) from the employers by Instance. It is argued for petitioner that as the
virtue of that negligence or fault of the employers or whether damages recoverable under the Civil Code are
they may avail themselves cumulatively of both actions, i.e., much more extensive than the amounts that
collect the limited compensation under the Workmen's may be awarded under the Workmen's
Compensation Act and sue in addition for damages in the Compensation Act, they should not be deemed
regular courts. incompatible. As already indicated, the injured
laborer was initially free to choose either to
In disposing of a similar issue, this Court in Pacana vs. Cebu recover from the employer the fixed amounts
Autobus Company, 32 SCRA 442, ruled that an injured worker set by the Compensation Law or else, to
has a choice of either to recover from the employer the fixed prosecute an ordinary civil action against the
amounts set by the Workmen's Compensation Act or to tortfeasor for higher damages. While perhaps
prosecute an ordinary civil action against the tortfeasor for not as profitable, the smaller indemnity
higher damages but he cannot pursue both courses of action obtainable by the first course is balanced by
simultaneously. the claimant's being relieved of the burden of
proving the causal connection between the
 defendant's negligence and the resulting injury, created to investigate the accident which established the
and of having to establish the extent of the criminal negligence and violation of law by Philex, and which
damage suffered; issues that are apt to be report was forwarded by the Director of Mines to the then
troublesome to establish satisfactorily. Having Executive Secretary Rafael Salas in a letter dated October 19,
staked his fortunes on a particular remedy, 1967 only (p. 76, rec.).
petitioner is precluded from pursuing the
alternate course, at least until the prior claim is WE hold that although the other petitioners had received the
rejected by the Compensation Commission. benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, such may
Anyway, under the proviso of Section 6 not preclude them from bringing an action before the regular
aforequoted, if the employer Franklin Baker court because they became cognizant of the fact that Philex
Company recovers, by derivative action against has been remiss in its contractual obligations with the
the alleged tortfeasors, a sum greater than the deceased miners only after receiving compensation under the
compensation he may have paid the herein Act. Had petitioners been aware of said violation of
petitioner, the excess accrues to the latter. government rules and regulations by Philex, and of its
negligence, they would not have sought redress under the
Although the doctrine in the case of Esguerra vs. Munoz Workmen's Compensation Commission which awarded a
Palma (104 Phil. 582), applies to third-party tortfeasor, said lesser amount for compensation. The choice of the first
rule should likewise apply to the employer-tortfeasor. remedy was based on ignorance or a mistake of fact, which
nullifies the choice as it was not an intelligent choice. The case
Insofar as the heirs of Nazarito Floresca are concerned, as should therefore be remanded to the lower court for further
already stated, the petition has been dismissed in the proceedings. However, should the petitioners be successful in
resolution of September 7, 1978 in view of the amicable their bid before the lower court, the payments made under the
settlement reached by Philex and the said heirs. Workmen's Compensation Act should be deducted from the
damages that may be decreed in their favor.
With regard to the other petitioners, it was alleged by Philex in
its motion to dismiss dated May 14, 1968 before the court a B
quo, that the heirs of the deceased employees, namely
Emerito Obra, Larry Villar, Jr., Aurelio Lanuza, Lorenzo Isla Contrary to the perception of the dissenting opinion, the Court
and Saturnino Martinez submitted notices and claims for does not legislate in the instant case. The Court merely applies
compensation to the Regional Office No. 1 of the then and gives effect to the constitutional guarantees of social
Department of Labor and all of them have been paid in full as justice then secured by Section 5 of Article 11 and Section 6 of
of August 25, 1967, except Saturnino Martinez whose heirs Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution, and now by Sections 6, 7,
decided that they be paid in installments (pp. 106-107, rec.). and 9 of Article 11 of the DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
Such allegation was admitted by herein petitioners in their AND STATE POLICIES of the 1973 Constitution, as amended,
opposition to the motion to dismiss dated May 27, 1968 (pp. and as implemented by Articles 2176, 2177, 2178, 1173, 2201,
121-122, rec.) in the lower court, but they set up the defense 2216, 2231 and 2232 of the New Civil Code of 1950.
that the claims were filed under the Workmen's Compensation
Act before they learned of the official report of the committee To emphasize, the 1935 Constitution declares that:
 Sec. 5. The promotion of social justice to insure rights of workers to self-organization, collective
the well-being and economic security of all the bargaining, security of tenure, and just and
people should be the concern of the State (Art. humane conditions of work. (emphasis
II). supplied).

Sec. 6. The State shall afford protection to The aforestated constitutional principles as implemented by
labor, especially to working women, and the aforementioned articles of the New Civil Code cannot be
minors, and shall regulate the relations impliedly repealed by the restrictive provisions of Article 173 of
between landowner and tenant, and between the New Labor Code. Section 5 of the Workmen's
labor and capital in industry and in agriculture. Compensation Act (before it was amended by R.A. No. 772 on
The State may provide for compulsory June 20, 1952), predecessor of Article 173 of the New Labor
arbitration (Art. XIV). Code, has been superseded by the aforestated provisions of
the New Civil Code, a subsequent law, which took effect on
The 1973 Constitution likewise commands the State to August 30, 1950, which obey the constitutional mandates of
"promote social justice to insure the dignity, welfare, and social justice enhancing as they do the rights of the workers as
security of all the people "... regulate the use ... and disposition against their employers. Article 173 of the New Labor Code
of private property and equitably diffuse property ownership seems to diminish the rights of the workers and therefore
and profits "establish, maintain and ensure adequate social collides with the social justice guarantee of the Constitution
services in, the field of education, health, and the liberal provisions of the New Civil Code.
housing, employment, welfare and social security to guarantee
the enjoyment by the people of a decent standard of The guarantees of social justice embodied in Sections 6, 7 and
living" (Sections 6 and 7, Art. II, 1973 Constitution); "... afford 9 of Article II of the 1973 Constitution are statements of legal
protection to labor, ... and regulate the relations between principles to be applied and enforced by the courts. Mr. Justice
workers and employers ..., and assure the rights of workers Robert Jackson in the case of West Virginia State Board of
to ... just and humane conditions of work" (Sec. 9, Art. II, 1973 Education vs. Barnette, with characteristic eloquence,
Constitution, emphasis supplied). enunciated:

The foregoing constitutional guarantees in favor of labor The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to
institutionalized in Section 9 of Article 11 of the 1973 withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes
Constitution and re-stated as a declaration of basic policy in of political controversy, to place them beyond
Article 3 of the New Labor Code, thus: the reach of majorities and officials and to
establish them as legal principles to be applied
Art. 3. Declaration of basic policy.—The by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and
State shall afford protection to labor, promote property, to free speech, a free press, freedom
full employment, ensure equal work of worship and assembly, and other
opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, fundamental rights may not be submitted to
and regulate the relations between workers vote; they depend on the outcome of no
and employers. The State shall assure the
 elections (319 U.S. 625, 638, 87 L.ed. 1638, employer under the Civil Code and other laws,
emphasis supplied). because of said injury (emphasis supplied).

In case of any doubt which may be engendered by Article 173 Employers contracting laborecsrs in the
of the New Labor Code, both the New Labor Code and the Philippine Islands for work outside the same
Civil Code direct that the doubts should be resolved in favor of may stipulate with such laborers that the
the workers and employees. remedies prescribed by this Act shall apply
exclusively to injuries received outside the
Thus, Article 4 of the New Labor Code, otherwise known as Islands through accidents happening in and
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, promulgated on during the performance of the duties of the
May 1, 1974, but which took effect six months thereafter, employment; and all service contracts made in
provides that "all doubts in the implementation and the manner prescribed in this section shall be
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its presumed to include such agreement.
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor
of labor" (Art. 2, Labor Code). Only the second paragraph of Section 5 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act No. 3428, was amended by Commonwealth
Article 10 of the New Civil Code states: "In case of doubt in the Act No. 772 on June 20, 1952, thus:
interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the
law-making body intended right and justice to prevail. " Sec. 5. Exclusive right to compensation.- The
rights and remedies granted by this Act to an
More specifically, Article 1702 of the New Civil Code likewise employee by reason of a personal injury
directs that. "In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor entitling him to compensation shall exclude all
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent other rights and remedies accruing to the
living of the laborer." employee, his personal representatives,
dependents or nearest of kin against the
Before it was amended by Commonwealth Act No. 772 on employer under the Civil Code and other laws,
June 20, 1952, Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act because of said injury.
provided:
Employers contracting laborers in the
Sec. 5. Exclusive right to compensation.- The Philippine Islands for work outside the same
rights and remedies granted by this Act to an shall stipulate with such laborers that the
employee by reason of a personal injury remedies prescribed by this Act shall apply to
entitling him to compensation shall exclude all injuries received outside the Island through
other rights and remedies accruing to the accidents happening in and during the
employee, his personal representatives, performance of the duties of the employment.
dependents or nearest of kin against the 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 Unlike Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as
favorable to them (As amended by section 5 of aforequoted, Article 173 of the New Labor Code does not even
Republic Act No. 772). remotely, much less expressly, repeal the New Civil Code
provisions heretofore quoted.
Article 173 of the New Labor Code does not repeal expressly
nor impliedly the applicable provisions of the New Civil Code, It is patent, therefore, that recovery under the New Civil Code
because said Article 173 provides: for damages arising from negligence, is not barred by Article
173 of the New Labor Code. And the damages recoverable
Art. 173. Exclusiveness of liability.- Unless under the New Civil Code are not administered by the System
otherwise provided, the liability of the State provided for by the New Labor Code, which defines the
Insurance Fund under this Title shall be "System" as referring to the Government Service Insurance
exclusive and in place of all other liabilities of System or the Social Security System (Art. 167 [c], [d] and [e]
the employer to the employee, his dependents of the New Labor Code).
or anyone otherwise entitled to receive
damages on behalf of the employee or his Furthermore, under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, decisions
dependents. The payment of compensation of the Supreme Court form part of the law of the land.
under this Title shall bar the recovery of
benefits as provided for in Section 699 of the Article 8 of the New Civil Code provides:
Revised Administrative Code, Republic Act
Numbered Eleven hundred sixty-one, as Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or
amended, Commonwealth Act Numbered One interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
hundred eighty- six, as amended, form a part of the legal system of the
Commonwealth Act Numbered Six hundred Philippines.
ten, as amended, Republic Act Numbered
Forty-eight hundred Sixty-four, as amended,
The Court, through the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, in
and other laws whose benefits are
People vs. Licera ruled:
administered by the System during the period
of such payment for the same disability or
death, and conversely (emphasis supplied). Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
decrees that judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution form
As above-quoted, Article 173 of the New Labor Code expressly
part of this jurisdiction's legal system. These
repealed only Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code,
decisions, although in themselves not laws,
R.A. No. 1161, as amended, C.A. No. 186, as amended, R.A.
constitute evidence of what the laws mean. The
No. 610, as amended, R.A. No. 4864, as amended, and all
application or interpretation placed by the Court
other laws whose benefits are administered by the System
upon a law is part of the law as of the date of
(referring to the GSIS or SSS).
the enactment of the said law since the Court's
application or interpretation merely establishes
 the contemporaneous legislative intent that the (3) cases is faithful to and advances the social justice
construed law purports to carry into effect" (65 guarantees enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
SCRA 270, 272-273 [1975]).
It should be stressed likewise that there is no similar provision
WE ruled that judicial decisions of the Supreme Court assume on social justice in the American Federal Constitution, nor in
the same authority as the statute itself (Caltex vs. Palomer, 18 the various state constitutions of the American Union.
SCRA 247; 124 Phil. 763). Consequently, the restrictive nature of the American decisions
on the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot limit the range
The aforequoted provisions of Section 5 of the Workmen's and compass of OUR interpretation of our own laws, especially
Compensation Act, before and after it was amended by Article 1711 of the New Civil Code, vis-a-vis Article 173 of the
Commonwealth Act No. 772 on June 20, 1952, limited the right New Labor Code, in relation to Section 5 of Article II and
of recovery in favor of the deceased, ailing or injured employee Section 6 of Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution then, and now
to the compensation provided for therein. Said Section 5 was Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Declaration of Principles and State
not accorded controlling application by the Supreme Court in Policies of Article II of the 1973 Constitution.
the 1970 case of Pacana vs. Cebu Autobus Company (32
SCRA 442) when WE ruled that an injured worker has a choice The dissent seems to subordinate the life of the laborer to the
of either to recover from the employer the fixed amount set by property rights of the employer. The right to life is guaranteed
the Workmen's Compensation Act or to prosecute an ordinary specifically by the due process clause of the Constitution. To
civil action against the tortfeasor for greater damages; but he relieve the employer from liability for the death of his workers
cannot pursue both courses of action simultaneously. Said arising from his gross or wanton fault or failure to provide
Pacana case penned by Mr. Justice Teehankee, applied safety devices for the protection of his employees or workers
Article 1711 of the Civil Code as against the Workmen's against the dangers which are inherent in underground mining,
Compensation Act, reiterating the 1969 ruling in the case of is to deprive the deceased worker and his heirs of the right to
Valencia vs. Manila Yacht Club (28 SCRA 724, June 30,1969) recover indemnity for the loss of the life of the worker and the
and the 1958 case of Esguerra vs. Munoz Palma (104 Phil. consequent loss to his family without due process of law. The
582), both penned by Justice J.B.L. Reyes. Said Pacana case dissent in effect condones and therefore encourages such
was concurred in by Justices J.B.L. Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, gross or wanton neglect on the part of the employer to comply
Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Villamor. with his legal obligation to provide safety measures for the
protection of the life, limb and health of his worker. Even from
Since the first sentence of Article 173 of the New Labor Code the moral viewpoint alone, such attitude is un-Christian.
is merely a re-statement of the first paragraph of Section 5 of
the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, and does not It is therefore patent that giving effect to the social justice
even refer, neither expressly nor impliedly, to the Civil Code as guarantees of the Constitution, as implemented by the
Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act did, with provisions of the New Civil Code, is not an exercise of the
greater reason said Article 173 must be subject to the same power of law-making, but is rendering obedience to the
interpretation adopted in the cases of Pacana, Valencia and mandates of the fundamental law and the implementing
Esguerra aforementioned as the doctrine in the aforesaid three legislation aforementioned.
The Court, to repeat, is not legislating in the instant case. care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do
himself." This is the very selfish doctrine that provoked the
It is axiomatic that no ordinary statute can override a American Civil War which generated so much hatred and drew
constitutional provision. so much precious blood on American plains and valleys from
1861 to 1864.
The words of Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act
and of Article 173 of the New Labor Code subvert the rights of "Idolatrous reverence" for the letter of the law sacrifices the
the petitioners as surviving heirs of the deceased mining human being. The spirit of the law insures man's survival and
employees. Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act ennobles him. In the words of Shakespeare, "the letter of the
and Article 173 of the New Labor Code are retrogressive; law killeth; its spirit giveth life."
because they are a throwback to the obsolete laissez-faire
doctrine of Adam Smith enunciated in 1776 in his treatise C
Wealth of Nations (Collier's Encyclopedia, Vol. 21, p. 93,
1964), which has been discarded soon after the close of the It is curious that the dissenting opinion clings to the myth that
18th century due to the Industrial Revolution that generated the courts cannot legislate.
the machines and other mechanical devices (beginning with Eli
Whitney's cotton gin of 1793 and Robert Fulton's steamboat of That myth had been exploded by Article 9 of the New Civil
1807) for production and transportation which are dangerous Code, which provides that "No judge or court shall decline to
to life, limb and health. The old socio-political-economic render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or
philosophy of live-and-let-live is now superdesed by the benign insufficiency of the laws. "
Christian shibboleth of live-and-help others to live. Those who
profess to be Christians should not adhere to Cain's selfish
Hence, even the legislator himself, through Article 9 of the New
affirmation that he is not his brother's keeper. In this our
Civil Code, recognizes that in certain instances, the court, in
civilization, each one of us is our brother's keeper. No man is
the language of Justice Holmes, "do and must legislate" to fill
an island. To assert otherwise is to be as atavistic and ante-
in the gaps in the law; because the mind of the legislator, like
deluvian as the 1837 case of Prisley vs. Fowler (3 MN 1,150
all human beings, is finite and therefore cannot envisage all
reprint 1030) invoked by the dissent, The Prisley case was
possible cases to which the law may apply Nor has the human
decided in 1837 during the era of economic royalists and
mind the infinite capacity to anticipate all situations.
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 But about two centuries before Article 9 of the New Civil Code,
debases him; because the decision derisively refers to the the founding fathers of the American Constitution foresaw and
lowly worker as "servant" and utilizes with aristocratic recognized the eventuality that the courts may have to legislate
arrogance "master" for "employer." It robs man of his inherent to supply the omissions or to clarify the ambiguities in the
dignity and dehumanizes him. To stress this affront to human American Constitution and the statutes.
dignity, WE only have to restate the quotation from Prisley,
thus: "The mere relation of the master and the servant never 'Thus, Alexander Hamilton pragmatically admits that judicial
can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more legislation may be justified but denies that the power of the
Judiciary to nullify statutes may give rise to Judicial tyranny ailment or injury is work-connected, even if the employer has
(The Federalist, Modern Library, pp. 503-511, 1937 ed.). faithfully and diligently furnished all the safety measures and
Thomas Jefferson went farther to concede that the court is contrivances decreed by the law to protect the employee.
even independent of the Nation itself (A.F.L. vs. American
Sash Company, 1949 335 US 538). The written word is no longer the "sovereign talisman." In the
epigrammatic language of Mr. Justice Cardozo, "the law has
Many of the great expounders of the American Constitution outgrown its primitive stage of formalism when the precise
likewise share the same view. Chief Justice Marshall word was the sovereign talisman, and every slip was fatal"
pronounced: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the (Wood vs. Duff Gordon 222 NW 88; Cardozo, The Nature of
Judicial department to say what the law is (Marbury vs. the Judicial Process 100). Justice Cardozo warned that:
Madison I Cranch 127 1803), which was re-stated by Chief "Sometimes the conservatism of judges has threatened for an
Justice Hughes when he said that "the Constitution is what the interval to rob the legislation of its efficacy. ... Precedents
judge says it is (Address on May 3, 1907, quoted by President established in those items exert an unhappy influence even
Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 9, 1937). This was now" (citing Pound, Common Law and Legislation 21 Harvard
reiterated by Justice Cardozo who pronounced that "No doubt Law Review 383, 387).
the limits for the judge are narrower. He legislates only
between gaps. He fills the open spaces in the law. " (The Finally, Justice Holmes delivered the coup de grace when he
Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 113). In the language of pragmatically admitted, although with a cautionary undertone:
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, "The only limit to the judicial "that judges do and must legislate, but they can do so only
legislation is the restraint of the judge" (U.S. vs. Butler 297 interstitially they are confined from molar to molecular motions"
U.S. 1 Dissenting Opinion, p. 79), which view is also (Southern Pacific Company vs. Jensen, 244 US 204 1917).
entertained by Justice Frankfurter and Justice Robert Jackson. And in the subsequent case of Springer vs. Government (277
In the rhetoric of Justice Frankfurter, "the courts breathe life, US 188, 210-212, 72 L.ed. 845, 852- 853), Justice Holmes
feeble or strong, into the inert pages of the Constitution and all pronounced:
statute books."
The great ordinances of the Constitution do not
It should be stressed that the liability of the employer under establish and divide fields of black and white.
Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act or Article 173 Even the more specific of them are found to
of the New Labor Code is limited to death, ailment or injury terminate in a penumbra shading gradually
caused by the nature of the work, without any fault on the part from one extreme to the other. x x x. When we
of the employers. It is correctly termed no fault liability. Section come to the fundamental distinctions it is still
5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, or Article more obvious that they must be received with a
173 of the New Labor Code, does not cover the tortious liability certain latitude or our government could not go
of the employer occasioned by his fault or culpable negligence on.
in failing to provide the safety devices required by the law for
the protection of the life, limb and health of the workers. Under To make a rule of conduct applicable to an
either Section 5 or Article 173, the employer remains liable to individual who but for such action would be
pay compensation benefits to the employee whose death, free from it is to legislate yet it is what the
 judges do whenever they determine which of Escubedo vs. Illinois (378 US 478), which guaranteed the
two competing principles of policy shall prevail. accused under custodial investigation his rights to remain
silent and to counsel and to be informed of such rights as even
xxx xxx xxx as it protects him against the use of force or intimidation to
extort confession from him. These rights are not found in the
It does not seem to need argument to show American Bill of Rights. These rights are now institutionalized
that however we may disguise it by veiling in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. Only the
words we do not and cannot carry out the peace-and-order adherents were critical of the activism of the
distinction between legislative and executive American Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
action with mathematical precision and divide
the branches into waterlight compartments, Even the definition of Identical offenses for purposes of the
were it ever so desirable to do so, which I am double jeopardy provision was developed by American judicial
far from believing that it is, or that the decisions, not by amendment to the Bill of Rights on double
Constitution requires. jeopardy (see Justice Laurel in People vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260,
261-268). And these judicial decisions have been re-stated in
True, there are jurists and legal writers who affirm that judges Section 7 of Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
should not legislate, but grudgingly concede that in certain Procedure, as well as in Section 9 of Rule 117 of the 1964
cases judges do legislate. They criticize the assumption by the Revised Rules of Court. In both provisions, the second offense
courts of such law-making power as dangerous for it may is the same as the first offense if the second offense is an
degenerate into Judicial tyranny. They include Blackstone, attempt to commit the first or frustration thereof or necessarily
Jeremy Bentham, Justice Black, Justice Harlan, Justice includes or is necessarily included in the first offense.
Roberts, Justice David Brewer, Ronald Dworkin, Rolf
Sartorious, Macklin Fleming and Beryl Harold Levy. But said The requisites of double jeopardy are not spelled out in the Bill
Justices, jurists or legal commentators, who either deny the of Rights. They were also developed by judicial decisions in
power of the courts to legislate in-between gaps of the law, or the United States and in the Philippines even before people vs.
decry the exercise of such power, have not pointed to Ylagan (58 Phil. 851-853).
examples of the exercise by the courts of such law-making
authority in the interpretation and application of the laws in Again, the equal protection clause was interpreted in the case
specific cases that gave rise to judicial tyranny or oppression of Plessy vs. Ferguson (163 US 537) as securing to the
or that such judicial legislation has not protected public interest Negroes equal but separate facilities, which doctrine was
or individual welfare, particularly the lowly workers or the revoked in the case of Brown vs. Maryland Board of Education
underprivileged. (349 US 294), holding that the equal protection clause means
that the Negroes are entitled to attend the same schools
On the other hand, there are numerous decisions interpreting attended by the whites-equal facilities in the same school-
the Bill of Rights and statutory enactments expanding the which was extended to public parks and public buses.
scope of such provisions to protect human rights. Foremost
among them is the doctrine in the cases of Miranda vs. Arizona De-segregation, not segregation, is now the governing
(384 US 436 1964), Gideon vs. Wainright (372 US 335), principle.
Among other examples, the due process clause was Unlike the American Constitution, both the 1935 and 1973
interpreted in the case of People vs. Pomar (46 Phil. 440) by a Philippine Constitutions expressly vest in the Supreme Court
conservative, capitalistic court to invalidate a law granting the power to review the validity or constitutionality of any
maternity leave to working women-according primacy to legislative enactment or executive act.
property rights over human rights. The case of People vs.
Pomar is no longer the rule. WHEREFORE, THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER OF
DISMISSAL IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND
As early as 1904, in the case of Lochner vs. New York (198 THE CASE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER
US 45, 76, 49 L. ed. 937, 949), Justice Holmes had been PROCEEDINGS. SHOULD A GREATER AMOUNT OF
railing against the conservatism of Judges perverting the DAMAGES BE DECREED IN FAVOR OF HEREIN
guarantee of due process to protect property rights as against PETITIONERS, THE PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE TO THEM
human rights or social justice for the working man. The law PURSUANT TO THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
fixing maximum hours of labor was invalidated. Justice Holmes SHALL BE DEDUCTED. NO COSTS.
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 SO ORDERED.
Supreme Court upheld the rights of workers to social justice in
the form of guaranteed minimum wage for women and minors, Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Plana, Escolin, De la Fuente,
working hours not exceeding eight (8) daily, and maternity Cuevas and Alampay JJ., concur.
leave for women employees.
Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.
The power of judicial review and the principle of separation of
powers as well as the rule on political questions have been
Abad Santos and Relova, JJ., took no part.
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.