1. YSMAEL MARITIME CORPORATION VS.

AVELINO remedies accruing to the employee, his personal

representatives, dependents or nearest of kin against
FACTS: the employer under the Civil Code and other laws,
 Rolando G. Lim, single, a licensed second mate, was on board because of said injury
the vessel M/S Rajah, owned by petitioner Ysmael Maritime ISSUE: Whether the compensation remedy under the Workmen’s
Corporation, when the same ran aground and sank near Compensation Act [WCA], and now under the Labor Code, for work-
Sabtan Island, Batanes. Rolando perished as a result of that connected death or injuries sustained by an employee, is exclusive of
incident. the other remedies available under the Civil Code
 Claiming that Rolando’s untimely death at the age of twenty-
five was due to the negligence of YSMAEL, his parents, RULING: NO
respondents Felix Lim and Consorcia Geveia, sued petitioner in
the Court of First Instance for damages  One view is that the injured employee or his heirs, in case of
 Petitioner-defendant (Ysmael Maritime) alleged by way of death, may initiate an action to recover damages [not
defenses: compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act) with
the regular courts on the basis of negligence of the employer
[1] that the complaint stated no cause of action; pursuant to the Civil Code.
 Another view, as enunciated in the Robles case, is that the
[2] that respondent-plaintiffs had received P4,160 from
remedy of an employee for work-connected injury or accident
petitioner and had signed release papers discharging
is exclusive in accordance with Section 5 of the WCA.
petitioner from any liability arising from the death of  A third view is that the action is selective and the employee
their son. and or his heirs have a choice of availing themselves of the
[3] that most significantly, the respondents had already benefits under the WCA or of suing in the regular courts under
been compensated by the Workmen’s Compensation the Civil Code for higher damages from the employer by
Commission [WCC] for the same incident, for which reason of his negligence.
 But once the election has been exercised, the
reason they are now precluded from seeking other
employee or his heirs are no longer free to opt for the
remedies against the same employer under the Civil
other remedy. In other words, the employee cannot
Code.
pursue both actions simultaneously.
 At issue is the exclusory provision of Section 5 of the  In so doing, the Court rejected the doctrine of
Workmen’s Compensation Act reiterated in Article 173 of the exclusivity of the rights and remedies granted by the
Labor Code: WCA as laid down in the Robles case
 As thus applied to the case at bar, respondent Lim spouses
“Sec. 5. Exclusive right to compensation.—The rights (parents of deceased) cannot be allowed to maintain
and remedies granted by this Act to an employee by their present action to recover additional damages
reason of a personal injury entitling him to against petitioner under the Civil Code. In open court,
compensation shall exclude all other rights and respondent Consorcia Geveia admitted that they had
 previously filed a claim for death benefits with the
WCC and had received the compensation payable to
them under the WCA.
 It is therefore clear that respondents had not only opted
to recover under the Act but they had also been duly
paid. At the very least, a sense of fair play would demand
that if a person entitled to a choice of remedies made a first
election and accepted the benefits thereof, he should no
longer be allowed to exercise the second option. “Having
staked his fortunes on a particular remedy, [he] is
precluded from pursuing the alternate course, at least
until the prior claim is rejected by the Compensation
Commission.

2. MARCOPPER MINING CORP. VS. ABELEDA

FACTS:  Jurisprudence on this matter was at that time rather confused
and indecisive. Fortunately, however, the conflict in the past
 Alfonso Ignacio, was killed in an accident on October 9, 1970, decisions has since been clarified with the adoption by the
while working in the petitioner’s plant. Court of the categorical rule first announced in the case of
 His widow, Juanita A. Ignacio, one of the private respondents
Floresca v. Philex Mining Corporation, which abandoned the
herein, thereafter claimed and was on December 18, 1970,
earlier doctrine embodied in Robles v. Yap Wing.
paid the sum of P6,423.95 as full compensation for her  In the Robles case, it was held that claims for damages
husband’s death under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. sustained by workers in the course of their employment could
 She executed on the same day a “Satisfaction of Claim” for
be filed only under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, to the
herself and her minor child, Alanie Ignacio, in which they
exclusion of all further claims under other laws.
waived all other claims under the said law against the  In Floresca, this doctrine was abrogated (ROBLES CASE) in
petitioner. favor of the new rule that the claimants may invoke either
 It is not denied that, in addition, the petitioner voluntarily paid
the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the provisions of
the sum of P10,000.00, which was accepted by the widow
the Civil Code, subject to the consequence that the
 All this notwithstanding, the private respondents later filed a
choice of one remedy will exclude the other and that
complaint against the petitioner for actual, moral, temperate
the acceptance of compensation under the remedy
and exemplary damages in the then Court of First Instance of
chosen will preclude a claim for additional benefits
Marinduque.
 They alleged that Ignacio’s death was the result of the under the other remedy.
 The exception is where a claimant who has already been
petitioner’s gross negligence in failing to provide safety
paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act may still sue for
measures prior to the repair of the defective disposal pipe that
damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening
had exploded and killed him.
 The petitioner moved to dismiss on the principal ground that facts or developments occurring after he opted for the first
full compensation had already been paid to and received by remedy.
the widow and her minor child under the Workmen’s
 It follows that having received full benefits under the
Compensation Act and that this barred the institution of
Workmen’s Compensation Act (plus the voluntary
another action under the Civil Code for the recovery of any
grant of another P10,000.00 from the petitioner), and
further sum based on the said incident.
there being no showing that they come under the
ISSUE: Whether a widow already fully compensated under the exception, Juanita Ignacio and her minor child may no
Workmen’s Compensation Law for the death of her husband may still longer maintain their complaint in the respondent
file a separate action for damages arising from the same death under court for recovery of additional damages as a result of
the Civil Code the death of Alfonso Ignacio. (Ruling in Floresca Case was
adopted)
RULING: NO