Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 574 views

    Floresca V Philex - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Darby Joya
    The petitioners were heirs of deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation who died in a cave-in at the company's copper mine. The petitioners argued Philex was negligent and failed to take safety precautions. Philex claimed the case fell under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court initially dismissed the case but later allowed the petitioners to file a civil suit in addition to receiving compensation, as an exception, because they did not know the true cause of action was Philex's negligence when initially filing. The court ruled the petitioners had a right to choose between claims under the Act or a civil suit, and the lower court had jurisdiction over the civil suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Floresca V Philex - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Darby Joya
    574 views1 page
    The petitioners were heirs of deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation who died in a cave-in at the company's copper mine. The petitioners argued Philex was negligent and failed to take safety precautions. Philex claimed the case fell under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court initially dismissed the case but later allowed the petitioners to file a civil suit in addition to receiving compensation, as an exception, because they did not know the true cause of action was Philex's negligence when initially filing. The court ruled the petitioners had a right to choose between claims under the Act or a civil suit, and the lower court had jurisdiction over the civil suit.

    Original Description:

    own case brief

    Original Title

    Floresca v Philex - Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were heirs of deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation who died in a cave-in at the company's copper mine. The petitioners argued Philex was negligent and failed to take safety precautions. Philex claimed the case fell under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court initially dismissed the case but later allowed the petitioners to file a civil suit in addition to receiving compensation, as an exception, because they did not know the true cause of action was Philex's negligence when initially filing. The court ruled the petitioners had a right to choose between claims under the Act or a civil suit, and the lower court had jurisdiction over the civil suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    574 views1 page

    Floresca V Philex - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Darby Joya
    The petitioners were heirs of deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation who died in a cave-in at the company's copper mine. The petitioners argued Philex was negligent and failed to take safety precautions. Philex claimed the case fell under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court initially dismissed the case but later allowed the petitioners to file a civil suit in addition to receiving compensation, as an exception, because they did not know the true cause of action was Philex's negligence when initially filing. The court ruled the petitioners had a right to choose between claims under the Act or a civil suit, and the lower court had jurisdiction over the civil suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Floresca, et al. v.

    Philex Mining Corporation


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

    FACTS:
    Perfecto, Romulo, and Nestor Floresca (petitioners) were the heirs of the deceased employees
    of Philex Mining Corporation (respondent). While working at the respondent’s copper mines
    underground operations, the said deceased employees died as a result of the cave-in that
    buried them in the tunnels of mine. The petitioners therefore argued that the respondent
    negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precautions for the protection of the
    lives of its men working underground. The respondent also acted in utter disregard of its bound
    legal and moral duties in the premises when they decided to abandon recure operations
    despite of the fact that a great many of mine workers were still alive, trapped in the tunnels of
    the mine.

    Philex filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the causes of actions of the petitioners based on
    industrial accident are covered by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that
    the Court of First Instance that heard the case has no jurisdiction over it. The petitioners
    however filed an opposition to the aforementioned motion claiming that the causes of action
    are based on the provisions of the Civil Code and not on the former. The judgment was to
    dismiss the case based on the grounds presented by the respondent and that the petitioners
    already received a compensation making them not entitled for a damage suit. The petitioners
    filed for motion for reconsideration which was accepted, and allowed the respondent to file an
    answer to the complaint. The judgment however stayed the same.

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not the petitioners have a right of selection of action between availing
    themselves of the worker’s right under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and suing
    under the Civil Code for higher damages, or both?
    2. Does the lower court have jurisdiction over the cause of action which is based on the
    provisions of the Civil Code on damages and not on the provisions of the Workmen’s
    Compensation Act?
    HELD:
    1. Yes. The petitioners should be choosing only one of the two to be filed against the
    respondent which is stated under Section 5 of WCA. However, due to the peculiarity of
    the instances, the Court allowed the petitioners to further file for a civil suit despite
    receiving a previous compensation from the respondent under WCA. This is because the
    petitioner did not know that the cause of the accident was that of the negligence of the
    respondent. Hence, there was a mistake of fact on the part of the petitioner. Had they
    known the true cause of action, they would have known that they have two choices,
    that is, a compensation under WCA or filing a civil suit. Hence, this case was given an
    exception to Section 5 of WCA.
    2. Yes. Since the petitioners of this case were given an exception to the Section 5 of WCA,
    the lower court has now jurisdiction over the cause of action.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy