CASE DIGEST

Floresca v. Philex
Statutory Construction

FACTS:
On June 28, 1967, the copper mines underground operation of Philex Mining Corporation at
Tuba, Benguet collapsed trapping 48 workers within its tunnel. The collapsed was due to the great
amount of accumulated water and mud in the open pit area which caused pressure in the working
spaces resulting for all its underground supports to collapse. Out of the 48 workers, five (5) were able
to escape, twenty-two (22) were rescued within seven (7) days, and twenty-one (21) were not rescued
and left to die due to Philex Mining Corporation’s decision to abandon rescue operations.
Claims of compensation were filed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by the petitioners.
Philex have voluntarily paid the compensation due to the petitioners and all payments have been
accepted on behalf of the deceased miners.
Upon learning the official report of the committee that investigated the accident which
established the criminal negligence and violation of law by Philex, the heirs of the deceased workers
filed a complaint for damages in the former Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
A motion to dismiss was filed by Philex on the ground that the causes of action of the
petitioners are based on an industrial accident and are covered by the provisions of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act (Act 3428, as amended by RA 772) thus the former Court of First Instance has no
jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners filed an opposition dated May 27, 1968 claiming that the causes
of action are not based on the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act but on the provisions of
the Civil Code allowing the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages.
The respondent Judge dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and ruled that in
accordance with the established jurisprudence, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission has
exclusive jurisdiction over damage or compensation claims for work-connected deaths or injuries.
Hence, the petitioners filed the present petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners have the right to claim damages under the Civil Code.

HELD/RULING:
Since Philex have committed criminal negligence and violation of law, the petitioners have the
right to claim damages under the Civil Code despite the fact that the petitioners have already received
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The petitioners have filed claims of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act not
knowing the violation and negligence of Philex. According to the court, this remedy is based on
ignorance or a mistake of fact which nullifies the choice.
The Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Article 173 of the New Labor Code limits the claims
of compensation to death, ailment, or injury caused by the nature of the work, without any fault on the
part of the employers. Thus, the employers are liable to compensation even if they have faithfully and
diligently furnished all the safety measures and contrivances decreed by the law to protect their
employees.
The dissenting opinions says otherwise but Article 10 of the New Civil Code states that in case
of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the law-making body intended
right and justice to prevail. Since Philex was proven to have committed criminal negligence and
violation of the law, the petitioners have the right to claim greater damages under the Civil Code.
THUS, the trial court’s order of dismissal was reversed and the case was remanded to it and
should a greater amount of damages be given to the petitioners, the payments already made to them
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act shall be deducted.