D. M. CONSUNJI, INC., vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 137873 April 20, 2001

FACTS: November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, Construction worker of DMCI fell from the 14th floor of
Renaissance Toweer while performing his work as a carpenter. Jose Juego’s widow, Maria, filed in
the RTC of Pasig a complaint for damages against the deceased’s employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc.
The decision of the RTC favored Maria Juego. An appeal by DMCI, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the RTC.

ISSUES:
1. WoN Sworn Statements are hearsays and inadmissible.
2. WoN Maria Juego who claimed death benefits under the Labor code be precluded from claiming
deceased’s employer damages under the civil code.
3. Does an implied waiver justify the knowledge on facts? WoN there is a mistake of fact/
ignorance of fact.

HELD:
1. NO. Unless the affiant is placed on a witness stand to testify. Sworn Statements and affidavit
are generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language
in writing the affiant’s statements which may either be omitted or misunderstood by the one
writing them.
2. YES. Citing from the rulings of a) Floresca vs.Philex Mining Corporation, payments made
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act should be deducted from the damages that may be
decreed in their favor in civil complaints (ruling was also reiterated in Ysmael Maritime
Corporation vs. Avelino,32 Vda. De Severo vs. Feliciano-Go,33 and Marcopper Mining Corp. vs.
Abeleda.); b) Pacaña vs. Cebu Autobus Company, 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; and c) Robles Case, choice of one remedy will
exclude the other and that the acceptance of compensation under the remedy chosen will
preclude a claim for additional benefits under the other remedy with the exception that where
a claimant who has already been paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act may still sue
for damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening facts or developments
occurring after he opted for the first remedy – ignorance of facts.
3. In this case, it doesn’t. What negates waiver is lack of knowledge or a mistake of fact – the
possible filing of a civil complaint. YES. Maria testified that she wasn’t aware of her rights –
different from ignorance of law.