CASE DIGEST: Ysmael Maritime Corporation v. Hon. Avelino

 


YSMAEL MARITIME CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. CELSO AVELINO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XIII, Court of First Instance of Cebu and SPOUSES FELIX C. LIM AND CONSTANCIA GEVEIA, respondents
G.R. No. L-43674               |              June 30, 1987

FACTS:

Rolando G. Lim, a licensed 2nd mate, was on board the vessel M/S Rajah, owned by petitioner Ysmael Maritime Corporation, when the same ran aground and sank near Sabtan Islan, Batanes. Rolando perished as a result of that incident.

Claiming that Rolando’s untimely death  was due to the negligence of petitioner, his parents, respondents Felix Lim and Consorcia Geveia, sued petitioner for damages.

In its answer, petitioner-defendant alleged that the respondents had already been compensated by the WCC for the same incident, for which reason they are now precluded from seeking other remedies against the same employer under the Civil Code.

ISSUE:

Whether the compensation remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and now under the Labor Code, for work-connected death or injuries sustained by an employee, is exclusive of the other remedies available under the Civil Code

RULING:

Respondent Lim spouses cannot be allowed to maintain their present action to recover additional damages against petitioner under the Civil Code. Respondent Consorcia Geveia admitted that they had previously filed a claim for death benefits with the WCC and had received the compensation payable to them therefrom. It is therefore clear that respondents had not only opted to recover under the Act but they had also been duly paid. At the very least, a sense of fair play would demand that if a person entitled to a choice of remedies made a first election and accepted the benefits thereof, he should no longer be allowed to exercise the second option. “Having staked his fortunes on a particular remedy, he is precluded from pursuing the alternate course, at least until the prior claim is rejected by the Compensation Commission.”


Comments