MARCOPPER MINING
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. JESUS V. ABELEDA, Presiding Judge, Court of
First Instance of Marinduque, EUFROCINO IGNACIO, URSULA MINAY and JUANITA
ALMARIO VDA. DE IGNACIO, as guardian ad litem of the minor, ALANIE IGNACIO,
respondents
G.R.
No. L-33851 | Aug. 15, 1988
FACTS:
Alfonso Ignacio was killed in an accident
while working in the petitioner’s plant. His widow, Juanita A. Ignacio,
thereafter claimed full compensation for her husband’s death under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act. She executed on the same day a “Satisfaction of
Claim” for herself and her minor child, Alanie Ignacio, in which they waived
all other claims under the said law against the petitioner. In addition, the
petitioner voluntarily paid P10,000.00, which was accepted by the widow.
All this notwithstanding, the private
respondents herein later filed a complaint against the petitioner for actual,
moral, temperate and exemplary damages in the CFI of Marinduque. They alleged
that Ignacio’s death was the result of the petitioner’s gross negligence in
failing to provide safety measures prior to the repair of the defective
disposal pipe that had exploded and killed him.
The petitioner moved to dismiss on the
principal ground that full compensation had already been paid to and received
by the widow and her minor child under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that
this barred the institution of another action under the Civil Code for the
recovery of any further sum based on the said incident.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the widow in this case is
barred from instituting an action for damages against petitioner
RULING:
In the Robles case, it was held that 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 Floresca, this doctrine was abrogated in
favor of the new rule that the 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.
It follows that having received full
benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act plus the voluntary grant of
another P10,000.00 from the petitioner, and there being no showing that they
come under the exception, Juanita Ignacio and her minor child may no longer
maintain their complaint in the respondent court for recovery of additional
damages as a result of the death of Alfonso Ignacio.
Comments
Post a Comment