Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation, 136 SCRA 141, April 30, 1985
Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation, 136 SCRA 141, April 30, 1985
_______________
* EN BANC.
142
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
143
employer either under the WCA or under the Civil Code for damages.—In
disposing of a similar issue, this Court in Pacana vs. Cebu Autobus
Company, 32 SCRA 442, ruled that an injured worker has a choice of either
to recover from the employer the fixed amounts set by the Workmen’s
Compensation Act or to prosecute an ordinary civil action against the
tortfeasor for higher damages but he cannot pursue both courses of action
simultaneously.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
144
Art. 173 diminishes workers rights and collides with the Constitution.—The
aforestated constitutional principles as implemented by the aforementioned
articles of the New Civil Code cannot be impliedly repealed by the
restrictive provisions of Article 173 of the New Labor Code. Section 5 of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act (before it was amended by R.A. No. 772
on June 20, 1952), predecessor of Article 173 of the New Labor Code, has
been superseded by the aforestated provisions of the New Civil Code, a
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
subsequent law, which took effect on August 30, 1950, which obey the
constitutional mandates of social justice enhancing as they do the rights of
the workers as against their employers. Article 173 of the New Labor Code
seems to diminish the rights of the workers and therefore collides with the
social justice guarantee of the Constitution and the liberal provisions of the
New Civil Code.
Same; Same; Same; Art. 173 of the new Labor Code repealed only
certain laws, including those whose benefits are administered by SSS or
GSIS.—As above-quoted, Article 173 of the New Labor Code expressly
repealed only Section 699 of the Revised Administration Code, R.A. No.
1161, as amended, C.A. No. 186, as amended, R.A, No. 610, as amended,
R.A. No. 4864, as amended, and all other laws whose benefits are
administered by the System (referring to the GSIS or SSS).
Same; Same; Same; Damages; As damages under the new Civil Code
are not being administered by the GSIS or SSS, Art. 173 of new Labor Code
does not bar damage suit by injured worker against his employer.—It is
patent, therefore, that recovery under the new Civil Code for damages
arising from negligence, is not barred by Article 173 of the New Labor
Code. And the damages recoverable under the New Civil Code are not
administered by the System provided for by the New Labor Code, which
defines the “System” as referring to the Government Service Insurance
System or the Social Security System (Art. 167 [c], [d] and [e] of the New
Labor Code).
Same; Same; Same; Same; Judgment; Same interpretation must be
given to Art. 173 of new Labor Code as in the cases of Pacaña, Valencia
and Esguerra.—Since the first sentence of Article 173 of the New Labor
Code is merely a re-statement of the first paragraph of Section 5 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, and does not even refer, neither
expressly nor impliedly, to the Civil Code as Section 5 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act did, with greater reason said Article 173 must be subject
to the same interpretation
145
Act and Article 173 of the New Labor Code are retrogressive; because they
are a throwback to the obsolete laissez-faire doctrine of Adam Smith
enunciated in 1776 in his treatise Wealth of Nations (Collier’s Encyclopedia,
Vol. 21, p. 93, 1964), which has been discarded soon after the close of the
18th century due to the Industrial Revolution that generated the machines
and other mechanical devices (beginning with Eli Whitney’s cotton gin of
1793 and Robert Fulton’s steamboat of 1807) for production and
transportation which are dangerous to life, limb and health. The old socio-
political-economic philosphy of live-and-letlive is now superseded by the
benign Christian shibboleth of live-and-help others to live. Those who
profess to be Christians should not adhere to Cain’s selfish affirmation that
he is not his brother’s keeper. In this our civilization, each one of us is our
brother’s keeper. No man is an island. To assert otherwise is to be as
atavistic and ante-deluvian as the 1837 case of Prisley vs. Fowler (3 MN
1,150 reprint 1030) invoked by the dissent. The Prisley case was decided in
1837 during the era of economic royalists and robber barons of America.
Only ruthless, unfeeling capitalistics and egoistic reactionaries continue to
pay obeisance to such un-Christian doctrine. The Prisley rule humiliates
man and debases him; because the decision derisively refers to the lowly
worker as “servant” and utilizes with aristocratic arrogance “master” for
“employer.” It robs man of his inherent dignity and dehumanizes him. To
stress this affront to human dignity, WE only have to restate the quotation
from Prisley, thus: “The mere relation of the master and the servant never
can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the
servant than he may reasonably be expected to do himself.” This is the very
selfish doctrine that provoked the American Civil War which generated so
much hatred and drew so much precious blood on American plains and
valleys from 1861 to 1864.
Constitutional Law; Judgments; Courts; The dissenting opinion clings
to the myth that courts cannot legislate. This myth has already
146
been exploded.—That myth had been exploded by 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.”
Same; Same; Same; Same.—Hence, even the legislator himself,
through Article 9 of the New Civil Code, recognizes that in certain
instances, the court, in the language of Justice Holmes, “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
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
cases to which the law may apply. Nor has the human mind the infinite
capacity to anticipate all situations.
Same; Same; Same; Same.—But about two centuries before Article 9 of
the New Civil Code, the founding fathers of the American Constitution
foresaw and recognized the eventuality that the courts may have to legislate
to supply the omissions or to clarify the ambiguities in the American
Constitution and the statutes. Thus, Alexander Hamilton pragmatically
admits that judicial legislation may be justified but denies that the power of
the Judiciary to nullify statutes may give rise to Judicial tyranny (The
Federalist, Modern Library, pp. 503-511, 1937 ed,), Thomas Jefferson went
farther to concede that the court is even independent of the Nation itself
(A.F.L. vs. American Sash Company, 1949 335 US 538).
Same; Same; Same; Same.—Finally, Justice Holmes delivered the coup
de grace when he pragmatically admitted, although with a cautionary
undertone: “that judges do and must legislate, but they can do so only
interstitially; they are confined from molar to molecular motions” (Southern
Pacific Company vs. Jensen, 244 US 204 1917).
147
148
Same; Same; Same; Same; Courts; Courts should not assume the role
of legislator.—I am against the Court assuming the role of legislator in a
matter calling for actuarial studies and public hearings. If employers already
required to contribute to the State Insurance Fund will still have to bear the
cost of damage suits or get insurance for that purpose, a major study will be
necessary. The issue before us is more far reaching than the interests of the
poor victims and their families. All workers covered by workmen’s
compensation and all employers who employ covered employees are
affected. Even as I have deepest sympathies for the victims, I regret that I
am constrained to dissent from the majority opinion.
MAKASIAR, J.:
“x x x x x x x x x;
“9. That for sometime prior and up to June 28, 1967, the defendant
PHILEX, with gross and reckless negligence and imprudence and deliberate
failure to take the required precautions for the due protection of the lives of
its men working underground at the time, and in utter violation of the laws
and the rules and regulations duly
149
150
“(b) Art. 1173—The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of
that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with
the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence
shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
“Art. 2201. x x x x x x x x x
“In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall
be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the
non-performance of the obligation.
“Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the
defendant acted with gross negligence.”
151
case for lack of jurisdiction and ruled that in accordance with the
established jurisprudence, the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over damage or
compensation claims for work-connected deaths or injuries of
workmen or employees, irrespective of whether or not the employer
was negligent, adding that if the employer’s negligence results in
work-connected deaths or injuries, the employer shall, pursuant to
Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, pay additional
compensation equal to 50% of the compensation fixed in the Act.
Petitioners thus filed the present petition.
In their brief, petitioners raised the following assignment of
errors:
II
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
In the first assignment of error, petitioners argue that the lower court
has jurisdiction over the cause of action since the complaint is based
on the provisions of the Civil Code on damages, particularly Articles
2176, 2178, 1173, 2201 and 2231, and not on the provisions of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act. They point out that the complaint
alleges gross and brazen negligence on the part of Philex in failing
to take the necessary security for the protection of the lives of its
employees working underground. They also assert that since Philex
opted to file a motion to dismiss in the court a quo, the
152
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
Philex cites the case of Manalo vs. Foster Wheeler (98 Phil. 855
[1956]) where it was held that “all claims of workmen against their
employer for damages due to accident suffered in the course of
employment shall be investigated and adjudicated by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission,” subject to appeal to the Supreme
Court.
Philex maintains that the fact that an employer was negligent,
does not remove the case from the exclusive
153
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
154
155
In the present case, there exists between Philex and the deceased
employees a contractual relationship. The alleged gross and reckless
negligence and deliberate failure that amount to bad faith on the part
of Philex, constitute a breach of contract for which it may be held
liable for damages. The provisions of the Civil Code on cases of
breach of contract when there is fraud or bad faith, read:
“Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary
damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive
or malevolent manner.
“Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the
obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural
and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the
parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the
obligation was constituted.
“In cases of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall
be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the
non-performance of the obligation.”
156
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
157
legislation designed to give relief to the workman who has been the
victim of an accident causing his death or ailment or injury in the
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
“In the analogous case of Esguerra vs. Muñoz Palma, involving the
application of Section 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act on the injured
workers’ right to sue third-party tortfeasors in the regular courts, Mr. Justice
J.B.L. Reyes, again speaking for the Court, pointed out that the injured
worker has the choice of remedies but cannot pursue both courses of action
simultaneously and thus balanced the relative advantage of recourse under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act as against an ordinary action.
“As applied to this case, petitioner Esguerra cannot maintain his action
for damages against the respondents (defendants below), because he has
elected to seek compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and
his claim (case No. 44549 of the Compensation Commission) was being
processed at the time he filed this action in the Court of First Instance. It is
argued for petitioner that as the damages recoverable under the Civil Code
are much more extensive than the amounts that may be awarded under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, they should not be deemed incompatible. As
already
158
indicated, the injured laborer was initially free to choose either to recover
from the employer the fixed amounts set by the Compensation Law or else,
to prosecute an ordinary civil action against the tortfeasor for higher
damages. While perhaps not as profitable, the smaller indemnity obtainable
by the first course is balanced by the claimant’s being relieved of the burden
of proving the causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and
the resulting injury, and of having to establish the extent of the damage
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
Although the doctrine in the case of Esguerra vs. Muñoz Palma (104
Phil. 582), applies to third-party tortfeasor, said rule should likewise
apply to the employer-tortfeasor.
Insofar as the heirs of Nazarito Floresca are concerned, as
already stated, the petition has been dismissed in the resolution of
September 7, 1978 in view of the amicable settlement reached by
Philex and the said heirs.
With regard to the other petitioners, it was alleged by Philex in its
motion to dismiss dated May 14, 1968 before the court a quo, that
the heirs of the deceased employees, namely Emerito Obra, Larry
Villar, Jr., Aurelio Lanuza, Lorenzo Isla and Saturnino Martinez
submitted notices and claims for compensation to the Regional
Office No. 1 of the then Department of Labor and all of them have
been paid in full as of August 25, 1967, except Saturnino Martinez
whose heirs decided that they be paid in installments (pp. 106-107,
rec.). Such allegation was admitted by herein petitioners in their
opposition to the motion to dismiss dated May 27, 1968 (pp. 121-22,
rec.) in the lower court, but they set up the defense that the claims
were filed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act before they
learned of the official report of the committee created to investigate
the accident which established the criminal negligence and violation
of law by Philex, and which report was forwarded by the Director of
Mines to the then Executive
159
Secretary Rafael Salas in a letter dated October 19, 1967 only (p. 76,
rec.).
WE hold that although the other petitioners had received the
benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, such may not
preclude them from bringing an action before the regular court
because they became cognizant of the fact that Philex has been
remiss in its contractual obligations with the deceased miners only
after receiving compensation under the Act. Had petitioners been
aware of said violation of government rules and regulations by
Philex, and of its negligence, they would not have sought redress
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
160
between landowner and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry
and in agriculture. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration” (Art.
XIV).
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
161
diminish the rights of the workers and therefore collides with the
social justice guarantee of the Constitution and the liberal provisions
of the New Civil Code.
The guarantees of social justice embodied in Sections 6, 7 and 9
of Article II of the 1973 Constitution are statements of legal
principles to be applied and enforced by the courts. Mr. Justice
Robert Jackson in the case of West Virginia State Board of
Education vs. Barnette, with characteristic eloquence, enunciated:
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from
the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of
majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the
outcome of no elections” (319 U.S. 625, 638, 87 L.ed. 1638, italics
supplied).
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
162
provided:
Article 173 of the New Labor Code does not repeal expressly nor
impliedly the applicable provisions of the New Civil Code, because
said Article 173 provides:
163
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
The Court, through the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, in
People vs. Licera, ruled:
164
“Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines decrees that judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of this
jurisdiction’s legal system. These decisions, although in themselves not
laws, constitute evidence of what the laws mean. 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 Court’s application or
interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that
the construed law purports to carry into effect” (65 SCRA 270, 272-273
[1975]).
Since the first sentence of Article 173 of the New Labor Code is
merely a re-statement of the first paragraph of Section 5 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, and does not even refer,
neither expressly nor impliedly, to the Civil Code as Section 5 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act did, with greater reason said Article
173 must be subject to the
165
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
166
stitutional provision.
The words of Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and
of Article 173 of the New Labor Code subvert the rights of the
petitioners as surviving heirs of the deceased mining employees.
Section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Article 173 of
the New Labor Code are retrogressive; because they are a throwback
to the obsolete laissez-faire doctrine of Adam Smith enunciated in
1776 in his treatise Wealth of Nations (Collier’s Encyclopedia, Vol.
21, p. 93, 1964), which has been discarded soon after the close of
the 18th century due to the Industrial Revolution that generated the
machines and other mechanical devices (beginning with Eli
Whitney’s cotton gin of 1793 and Robert Fulton’s steamboat of
1807) for production and transportation which are dangerous to life,
limb and health. The old socio-political-economic philosophy of
live-and-let-live is now superdesed by the benign Christian
shibboleth of live-and-help others to live. Those who profess to be
Christians should not adhere to Cain’s selfish affirmation that he is
not his brother’s keeper. In this our civilization, each one of us is our
brother’s keeper. No man is an island. To assert otherwise is to be as
atavistic and ante-deluvian as the 1837 case of Prisley vs. Fowler (3
MN 1,150 reprint 1030) invoked by the dissent. The Prisley case
was decided in 1837 during the era of economic royalists and robber
barons of America. Only ruthless, unfeeling capitalistics and egoistic
reactionaries continue to pay obeisance to such un-Christian
doctrine. The Prisley rule humiliates man and debases him; because
the decision derisively refers to the lowly worker as “servant” and
utilizes with aristocratic arrogance “master” for “employer.” It robs
man of his inherent dignity and dehumanizes him. To stress this
affront to human dignity, WE only have to restate the quotation from
Prisley, thus: “The mere relation of the master and the servant never
can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care
of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do himself.”
This is the very selfish doctrine that provoked the American Civil
War which generated so much hatred and drew so much precious
blood on American plains and valleys from 1861 to 1864.
“Idolatrous reverence” for the letter of the law sacrifices the
167
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
human being. The spirit of the law insures man’s survival and
ennobles him. In the words of Shakespeare, “the letter of the law
killeth; its spirit giveth life.”
It is curious that the dissenting opinion clings to the myth that the
courts cannot legislate.
That myth had been exploded by 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.”
Hence, even the legislator himself, through Article 9 of the New
Civil Code, recognizes that in certain instances, the court, in the
language of Justice Holmes, “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. Nor has the human mind the infinite
capacity to anticipate all situations.
But about two centuries before Article 9 of the New Civil Code,
the founding fathers of the American Constitution foresaw and
recognized the eventuality that the courts may have to legislate to
supply the omissions or to clarify the ambiguities in the American
Constitution and the statutes.
Thus, Alexander Hamilton pragmatically admits that judicial
legislation may be justified but denies that the power of the Judiciary
to nullify statutes may give rise to Judicial tyranny (The Federalist,
Modern Library, pp. 503-511, 1937 ed.). Thomas Jefferson went
farther to concede that the court is even independent of the Nation
itself (A.F.L. vs. American Sash Company, 1949 335 US 538).
Many of the great expounders of the American Constitution
likewise share the same view. Chief Justice Marshall pronounced:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial department
to say what the law is” (Marbury vs. Madison 1 Cranch 127 1803),
which was re-stated by Chief Justice Hughes when he said that “the
Constitution is what the judge says it is” (Address on May 3, 1907,
quoted by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 9, 1937).
This was
168
169
“The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields
of black and white. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in
a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other. x x x. When
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
True, there are jurists and legal writers who affirm that judges should
not legislate, but grudgingly concede that in certain cases judges do
legislate. They criticize the assumption by the courts of such law-
making power as dangerous for it may degenerate into Judicial
tyranny. They include Blackstone, Jeremy Bentham, Justice Black,
Justice Harlan, Justice Roberts, Justice David Brewer, Ronald
Dworkin, Rolf Sartorious, Macklin Fleming and Beryl Harold Levy.
But said Justices, jurists or legal commentators, who either deny the
power of the courts to legislate in-between gaps of the law, or decry
the exercise of such power, have not pointed to examples of the
exercise by the courts of such law-making authority in the
interpretation and application of the laws in specific cases that gave
rise to judicial tyranny or oppression or that such judicial legislation
has not protected public interest or in-
170
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 27/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
171
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 28/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
172
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 29/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
This case involves a complaint for damages for the death of five
employees of PHILEX Mining Corporation under the general
provisions of the Civil Code. The Civil Code itself, however,
provides for its non-applicability to the complaint. It is specifically
provided in Article 2196 of the Code, found in Title XVIII—
Damages, that:
173
argument is but a play on words. The term ‘compensation’ is used in the law
(Act 3812 and Republic Act 772) in the sense of indemnity for damages
suffered, being awarded for a personal injury caused or aggravated by or in
the course of employment. x x x.”
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 30/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
B.
174
“Act No. 3428 was adopted by the Philippine legislature, in Spanish and
some sections of the law were taken from the statutes of Minnesota and
Hawaii, (Chapter 209 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii, 1925).” [Morabe &
Inton, Workmen’s Compensation Act, p. 2]
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 31/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
175
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 32/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
compensation from his employer, under this Act, or sue such other person
for damages, in accordance with law; x x x” (Italics supplied)
176
“Such stipulation shall not prejudice the right of the laborers to the benefits
of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the place where the accident
occurs, should such law be more favorable to them.” (Italics supplied)
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 33/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
It will be seen that, within the Act itself, the exclusory character of
the Act was amended. At that time, if he had so desired, the
legislator could have amended the first paragraph of Section 5 so
that the employee would have the option to sue the employer under
the Act, or under the Civil Code, should the latter be more favorable
to him.
177
In time, it must have been thought that it was inequitable to have the
amount of compensation, caused by negligence on the part of the
employer, to be the same amount payable when the1 employer was
not negligent. Based on that thinking, Section 4-A was included
into the Act, on June 20, 1952, through RA 772. Said Section 4-A
increased the compensation payable by 50% in case there was
negligence on the part of the employer. That additional section
evidenced the intent of the legislator not to give an option to an
employee, injured with negligence on the part of the employer, to
sue the latter under the provisions of the Civil Code.
On June 20, 1964, Section 4-A was amended (insubstantially) by
RA 4119. The legislator was again given the opportunity to provide,
but he did not, the option to an employee to sue under the Act or
under the Civil Code.
When a Court gives effect to a statute not in accordance with the
intent of the lawmaker, the Court is unjustifiably legislating.
It is in view of the foregoing that I vote for affirmation of the trial
Court’s dismissal of the Complaint.
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 34/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
178
179
180
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 36/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
blame had been pointed officially at the employer or his agents. In most
cases both the facts and the law were uncertain. The witnesses, who were
usually fellow workers of the victim, were torn between friendship or
loyalty to their class, on the one hand, and fear of reprisal by the employer,
on the other. The expense and delay of litigation often prompted the injured
employee to accept a compromise settlement for a fraction of the full value
of his claim. Even if suit were successfully prosecuted, a large share of the
proceeds of the judgment were exacted as contingent fees by counsel. Thus
the employer against whom judgment was cast often paid a substantial
damage bill, while only a part of this enured to the benefit of the injured
employee or his dependents. The employee’s judgment was nearly always
too little and too late.
xxx xxx xxx
“Workmen’s Compensation rests upon the economic principle that those
persons who enjoy the product of a business—whether it be in the form of
goods or services—should ultimately bear the cost of the injuries or deaths
that are incident to the manufacture, preparation and distribution of the
product. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
“Under this approach the element of personal fault either disappears
entirely or is subordinated to broader economic considerations. The
employer absorbs the cost of accident loss only initially; it is expected that
this cost will eventually pass down the stream of commerce in the form of
increase price until it is spread in dilution among the ultimate consumers. So
long as each competing unit in a given industry is uniformly affected, no
producer can gain any substantial competitive advantage or suffer any
appreciable loss by reason of the general adoption of the compensation
principle.
“In order that the compensation principle may operate properly and with
fairness to all parties it is essential that the anticipated accident cost be
predictable and that it be fixed at a figure that will not disrupt too violently
the traffic in the product of the industry affected. Thus predictability and
moderateness of cost are necessary from the broad economic viewpoint. x x
x.
“Compensation, then, differs from the conventional damage suit in two
important respects: Fault on the part of either employer or
181
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 37/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
advantages in order to gain others which are of more importance both to him
and to society. The employer gives up the immunity he otherwise would
enjoy in cases where he is not at fault, and the employee surrenders his
former right to full damages and accepts instead a more modest claim for
bare essentials, represented by compensation.
“The importance of the compromise character of compensation cannot
be overemphasized. The statutes vary a great deal with reference to the
proper point of balance. The amount of weekly compensation payments and
the length of the period during which compensation is to be paid are matters
concerning which the acts differ considerably. The interpretation of any
compensation statute will be influenced greatly by the court’s reaction to the
basic point of compromise established in the Act. If the court feels that the
basic compromise unduly favors the employer, it will be tempted to restore
what it regards as a proper balance by adopting an interpretation that favors
the worker. In this way, a compensation act drawn in a spirit of extreme
conservatism may be transformed by a sympathetic court into a fairly liberal
instrument; and conversely, an act that greatly favors the laborer may be so
interpreted by the courts that employers can have little reason to complain.
Much of the unevenness and apparent conflict in compensation decisions
throughout the various jurisdictions must be attributed to this.” (Malone &
Plant, Workmen’s Compensation, American Casebook Series, pp. 63-65).
182
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 38/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
183
——o0o——
184
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 39/40
9/11/23, 10:37 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84b07a314183da85000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 40/40