Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Floresca v. Philex

    Uploaded by

    Qryz KrozHearth

    Copyright:

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

    Floresca v. Philex

    Uploaded by

    Qryz KrozHearth
    2 views1 page

    Original Title

    12. Floresca v. Philex

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

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

    Floresca v. Philex

    Uploaded by

    Qryz KrozHearth

    Copyright:

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

    FLORESCA v.

    PHILEX
    G.R. No. L-30642 (Apr. 30, 1985)
    En Banc (J. Makasiar)

    Facts

    On June 28, 1967 several employees of Philex Mining Corporation (respondent) died
    as a result of a tragic cave-in that buried them in the tunnels. The heirs of the deceased
    employees, including Floresca (petitioner), after receiving the benefits under the Workmen’s
    Compensation Act, sued Philex asking for damages for negligence as an employer under the
    Civil Code. The amount of damages under the Civil Code would be greater than the benefit
    provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Philex appealed arguing that the benefits
    under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the damages provided in the Civil Code are
    mutually exclusive choices, i.e., the choice of one bars the other. The Supreme Court, sharply
    divided on that issue, ruled that the petitioners are still entitled to recover civil damages
    from Philex less the benefits already received under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. One
    of the dissenting opinions stated that the ruling was in the form of judicial legislation since
    Section 5 of Workmen’s Compensation Act provided for exclusivity.

    Issue

    Whether by allowing the petitioners to recover the incremental damages under the
    Civil Code in addition to the benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Act amounted to
    judicial legislation?

    Holding and Reasoning

    NO. In allowing the petitioners to recover the incremental damages under the Civil
    Code in addition to the benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Act does NOT amount to
    judicial legislation. The Supreme Court ruled that it merely applied the constitutional
    guarantee of social justice that in case of doubt between the Workmen’s Compensation Act
    and the Civil Code, the doubt should always be resolved in favor of labor. The majority
    opinion of the Supreme Court decision as regards social justice guarantee shall form part of
    the law of the land and assume the same authority as the law itself per Article 8 of the Civil
    Code. The Court, moreover, said that because the petitioners were still unaware that they
    could hold Philex liable for negligence as an employer when they chose to receive the
    benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it was ignorance or a mistake of fact which
    nullified their choice as it was not an intelligent choice. But should the petitioners recover
    damages under the Civil Code, the benefits they received under the Workmen’s
    Compensation Act should be deducted therefrom.

    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