CASE TITLE Consunji vs.

Court of Appeals

GR NO. L-137873 DATE OF DECISION April 20, 2001

PONENTE Kapunan, J.

LEGAL BASIS Article 6 of the NCC

DOCTRINE/S Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of known right; lack of knowledge or

a mistake of fact negates waiver;

FACTS:

D. M. CONSUNJI, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA J. JUEGO,

respondents.

At around 1:30 p.m., November 2, 1990, Jose A. Juego was crushed to death when the platform
he was then on board and performing work, fell. The falling of the platform was due to the
removal or getting loose of the pin which was merely inserted to the connecting points of the
chain block and platform but without a safety lock.

On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego’s widow, Maria, filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig a
complaint for damages 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.

After trial, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego.

On appeal by D. M. Consunji, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.

D. M. Consunji now seeks the reversal of the CA decision.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Maria Juego can still claim damages with D.M. Consunji apart from
the death benefits she claimed in the State Insurance Fund.

RULING:

The claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment could be filed only under
the Workmen´s Compensation Law, to the exclusion of all further claims under other laws. In the course
of availing the remedies provided under the Workmen’s Compensation law, the claimants are deemed to
have waived their known right of the remedies provided by other laws.

The Court of Appeals, however, held that the case at bar came under exception because the private
respondent was unaware of petitioner´s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the
State Insurance Fund.The choice of the first remedy based on ignorance or a mistake of fact, nullifies the
choice as it was not an intelligent choice.

Had the claimant been aware, she would’ve opted to avail of a better remedy than that of which she
already had.

RATIONALE
Conclusion: Waiver requires a knowledge of the facts basic to the exercise of the right waived, with an
awareness of its consequences. That a waiver is made knowingly and intelligently must be illustrated on
the record or by the evidence. The private respondent’s waiver of right to claim damages with D.M.
Consunji was nullified because she was not aware of the petitioner’s negligence.
Also, application of the maxim “ignorantia legis non excusat” cannot be in this case because it only
applies to mandatory and prohibitory laws.

JURIS DOCTOR 1A CLASS DIGEST