Floresca v. Philex Mining GR L-30642.

, 30 April 1985 (136 SCRA 142) En Banc, Makasiar (p): 7 concurring, 1 on leave, 2 took no part, others dissenting Facts: Several miners were killed in a cave-in at one of Philex Mining Corporations mine sites. The heirs of the miners were able to recover under the Workmans Compensation Act (WCA). Thereafter, a special committee report indicated that the company failed to provide the miners with adequate safety protection. The heirs decided to file a complaint for damages before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. Philex filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the action was based on an industrial accident which is covered under the WCA and, therefore, the CFI has no jurisdiction over the case. Philex argues that the work connected injuries are compensable exclusively under Sections 5 and 46 of the WCA; and that the WCA covers workconnected accidents even if the employer was negligent as the WCA under Section 4-A imposes a 50% additional compensation in the event that the employer is negligent. The heirs, however, contend that the CFI has jurisdiction, as their complaint is not based on the WCA but on the Civil Code provisions on damages arising out of negligence. The CFI dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The heirs questioned the dismissal before the Supreme Court. Amici curiae submitted their respective memoranda, pursuant to the resolution of 26 November 1976, involving the issue whether the action of an injured employee or worker or that of his heirs in case of his death under the Workmens Compensation Act is exclusive, selective or cumulative; i.e. (1: Exclusive) whether an injured employee or his heirs action is exclusively restricted to seeking the limited compensation provided under the Workmens Compensation Act, (2: Selective) whether an injured employee or his heirs have a right of selection or choice of action between availing of the workers right under the Workmens Compensation Act and suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages (actual, moral and/or exemplary) from the employer by virtue of negligence (or fault) of the employer or of his other employees, or (3: Cumulative) whether an injured employee or his heirs may avail cumulatively of both actions, i.e., collect the limited compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act and sue in addition for damages in the regular courts. The opinions of the amici curiae are diverse. The Court in this same decision agreed with the argument that the action is selective, i.e. that the injured worker or his heirs have the choice of remedies, but that they cannot pursue both courses of action simultaneously and balance the relative advantage of recourse under the Workmens Compensation Act as against an ordinary action. It further held that the petitioners who had received the benefits under the Workmens Compensation Act, such may not preclude them from bringing an action before the regular court, as the choice of the first remedy was based on ignorance or a mistake of fact, which nullifies the choice as it was not an intelligent choice, but that upon the success of such bids before the lower court, the payments made under the Workmens Compensation Act should be deducted from the damages that may be decreed in their favor. Issue: Whether the Supreme Court, in determining the action to be selective, is guilty of judicial legislation. Held: The Court, through its majority, defended itself by holding that the Court does not legislate but merely applies and gives effect to the constitutional guarantees of social justice then secured by Section 5 of Article II and Section 6 of Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution, and later by Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Article II of the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the 1973 Constitution, as amended, and as implemented by Articles 2176, 2177, 2178, 1173, 2201, 2216, 2231 and 2232 of the New Civil Code of 1950. Further, it reiterated its ruling in People vs.

Licera: that judicial decisions of the Supreme Court assume the same authority as the statute itself, pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which decrees that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of this jurisdictions legal system. It argues that the application or interpretation placed by the Court upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Courts application or interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect. Yet, the Court argues that the Court can legislate, pursuant to Article 9 of the New Civil Code, which provides that No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. Thus, even the legislator himself recognizes that in certain instances, the court do and must legislate to fill in the gaps in the law; because the mind of the legislator, like all human beings, is finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible cases to which the law may apply