CONSUNJI VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 137873, 20 April 2001

FACTS:
At around 1:30 p.m., November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of D.
M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his
death. On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego’s widow, Maria, filed a complaint for damages
at the RTC of Pasig against the deceased’s employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc.

The employer raised, among other defenses, the widow’s prior availment of the
benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of
the widow Maria Juego.

ISSUES:
Whether or not:

1. The petitioner can be held liable under the grounds of negligence.

2. The injured employee or his heirs have the right to choose between availing
themselves of the worker’s right under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and
suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages in cases of
employer’s negligence.
 
HELD:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “the thing or transaction speaks for itself”
recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof. It
has the following requisites: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency
which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged
with negligence; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. All the
requisites for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur are present in the case
at bar, thus a reasonable presumption or inference of appellant’s negligence
arises.
Claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment
could be filed only under the Workmen´s Compensation Law. In availing its
remedies, claimants are deemed to have waived their  right of the remedies
provided by other laws. However, this is an exception because private respondent
was unaware of petitioner´s negligence when she filed her claim for death
benefits, otherwise, she would have opted to avail of a better remedy than that of
which she already had.
CUI vs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY
G.R. No. L-15127

30 May 1961

FACTS:
Emeterio Cui enrolled in the defendant university where plaintiff finished his law
studies up to the first semester of his fourth year. Plaintiff was awarded with
scholarship grants and his tuition fees were returned to him at the end of each
semester. Plaintiff left the defendant’s law school and enrolled for the last
semester of his fourth year at the College of Law of Abad Santos University where
he graduated.

He applied to take the bar examination in with which he needed the transcript of
records from defendant Arellano University. The defendant demanded that he
had paid back the P1, 033.87, noting the contract that he signed stated that in
consideration of the scholarship granted to him by the University, he waives his
right to transfer to another school without having refunded to the defendant the
equivalent of the scholarship cash.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract between Cui and the respondent university, whereby
the former waives his right to transfer to another school without having refunded
to the defendant the equivalent of the scholarship is valid or not.

HELD:
The contract of waiver between the plaintiff and respondent on September 10,
1951, is a direct violation of Memorandum No. 38 and hence null and void. The
contract was contrary to sound policy and civic honesty. The policy enunciated in
Memorandum No.38, 1949 is sound policy.
When students are given full or partial scholarships it is understood that such
scholarships are merited and earned. The amount in tuition and other fees
corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged to the
recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to another
institution.