TOPIC: NEW CIVIL CODE Art. 7 and Art.

FLORESCA (wife and heirs), MARTINEZ (wife and heirs), OBRA (wife and heirs), VILLAR (wife and heirs),
LANUZA (wife and heirs), AND ISLA (wife and heirs), petitioners
vs.
PHILEX MINING CORPORATION and HON. JESUS P. MORFE, Presding Judge of Branch XIII, Court of First
Instance of Manila, respondents

INTRODUCTION
FLORESCA et al., filed a PETITION TO REVIEW THE ORDER (in the Court of Appeals) of the former Court of
First Instance of Manila dismissing the petitioners’ complaint for the damages on the ground of LACK OF
JURISDICTION
FACTS
 On JUNE 28, 1967, PHILEX’s copper mine in Tuba, Benguet collapsed
 Out of 48 men who was working at that time, 5 were able to escape, 22 were rescued in the
next 7 days, and the rest, 21 were left mercilessly to their fate
 PHILEX filed a MOTION TO DISMISS claiming that the petitioners’ claim are covered by the
provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; and that the Court of First Instance has no
jurisdiction over the case
 Petitioners’ filed an OPPOSITION (rejoiner affidavit or the response by the petitioner to the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent), claiming that the causes of their action are NOT
based on the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act but on the provisions of the Civil
Code, particularly Art. 2176, Art. 2178 (Art. 1173), Art. 2201, Art. 2231
 On June 27, 1968, JUDGE JESUS P. MORFE DISMISSED the case on the ground that it falls within
the jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, respondent Judge reconsidered and set aside his
decision for dismissal; Philex moved to reconsider the aforesaid order which was opposed again
by petitioners
 On December 16, 1968, Judge Morfe DISMISSED the case for LACK OF JURISDICTION and ruled
that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over the case
 Petitioners thus filed the present petition on a higher court
ISSUE
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:

Whether the heirs’ action is EXCLUSIVELY RESTRICTED to seeking the limited compensation provided under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act (WCA);
Whether the heirs have a right of SELECTION OF CHOICE between availing of the worker’s right under the WCA
and suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code (CC) for higher damages from Philex by virtue of negligence;
Whether the heirs may avail CUMULATIVELY of both actions – collect the limited compensation under WCA and
sue in addition for damages in the regular courts
Petitioners Philex and Judge Morfe
 CFI (Court of First Instance) has jurisdiction  Asserts that work-connected injuries are
over the cause of action since the compensable exclusively under the
complaint is pursuant to the provisions of provisions of Section 5 & 46 of the WCA
the Civil Code (Art. 2176, 2178, 1173,  the complaint is under the jurisdiction of
2201, and 2231) because of gross & the Workmen’s Compensation Commission
brazen negligence on the part of Philex in
failing to take necessary security and
precautions for the protection of the lives
TOPIC: NEW CIVIL CODE Art. 7 and Art. 8

of its employees working underground

 CFI failed to see the distinction between
claims for damages under the CC (Civil
Code) and claims for compensation under
the WCA (Workmen’s Compensation Act)
o Claims for compensation (WCA) refers
to liability for compensation for loss
without regard to the fault or
negligence of the employer
o Claims for damages (CC) refers to
liability for reckless & wanton
negligence resulting in the death
CORT OF APPEALS REASON/RATIONALE

EXCLUSIVELY RESTRICED:
 The CFI has jurisdiction to try the case because the complaint is for the claims for damages (in
the total amount of PHP 825,000.00) because the complaint alleges gross and reckless
negligence to protect the lives of its workers
 Alleged gross & reckless negligence & deliberate failure amounts to bad faith which constitutes
BREACH OF CONTRACT which the employer may be held liable for damages
 Awarding compensation under WCA DIFFERS from that in giving damages under the CC.
o 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
o Damages are awarded to one as a vindication of 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
 The WCA 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, plus 50% if the complaint alleges failure
on the part of the employer

SELECTIVE and CUMULATIVE

 Compensation benefits should be paid to an employee who suffered an accident – not due to
the lack of facilities
 CC and WCA should not be incompatible. Injured laborer (or the heir/s) was initially free to
choose either to recover from fixed amounts under WCA or to sue under the CC for higher
damages

RULING/HELD

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.
TOPIC: NEW CIVIL CODE Art. 7 and Art. 8

BASIS

NEW CIVIL CODE 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. 2231 In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence.

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 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. (1107a)