CASE DIGEST: D.M. Consunji Inc. v. CA

 

D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA J. JUEGO, respondents
G.R. No. 137873                |              April 20, 2001

FACTS:

While victim Jose A. Juego together with 2 of his co-workers were performing their work as carpenters at the elevator core of the 14^th floor of Tower D, Renaissance Tower Building on board a platform made of steel beam with pinulid plywood flooring, when suddenly, the bolt or pin which was merely inserted to connect the chain block with the platform, got loose, causing the whole platform assembly and the victim to fall down to the basement of the elevator core thereby crushing the victim to death.

On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego’s widow, Maria, filed in the 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is precluded from filing an action for damages against petitioner considering her prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund

RULING:

In Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation, the court held that as to whether or not the injured employee or his heirs in case of death have a right of selection or choice of action 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 from the employers by virtue of the negligence or fault of the employers or whether they may avail themselves cumulatively of both actions.

The ruling in Floresca providing the claimant a choice of remedies was reiterated in Ysmael Maritime Corporation vs. Avelino, Vda. de Severo vs. Feliciano-Go and Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Abeleda. In the last case, the Court again recognized that a claimant who had been paid under the Act could still sue under the Civil Code. The Court said that claimants may invoke either the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the provisions of the Civil Code, subject to the consequence that the choice of one remedy will exclude the other and that the acceptance of compensation under the remedy chosen will preclude a claim for additional benefits under the other remedy. The exception is where a claimant who has already been paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act may still sue for damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening facts or developments occurring after he opted for the first remedy.

Here, the CA held that private respondent’s case came under the exception because private respondent was unaware of petitioner’s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund. Private respondent filed the civil complaint for damages after she received a copy of the police investigation report and the Prosecutor’s Memorandum.

There is no proof that private respondent knew that her husband died in the elevator crash when she accomplished her application for benefits from the ECC. The police investigation report is dated November 25, 1990, 10 days after the accomplishment of the form. There is also no showing that private respondent knew of the remedies available to her when the claim before the ECC was filed. On the contrary, private respondent testified that she was not aware of her rights.