Floresca, et al vs.

Philex Mining Corporaion, et al

G.R. No. L-3064
!pril 30, "#$%
&! case 'eci'e' () the *+pre,e Co+rt sitting en (anc.-
.. Facts o/ the Case
A petition to review the order of the former Court of First Instance of Manila Branch XIII, dated
December 16, 16! dismissin" petitioners# complaint for dama"es on the "round of lac$ of %urisdiction&
'pecificall(, the complaint alle"es that )hile*+
- ,iolated "overnment rules and re"ulations
- Failed to ta$e the re-uired precautions for the protection of the lives of its men ne"li"entl( and
deliberatel( notwithstandin" the fact that it had vast financial resources& As of December .1, 166,
Assets / )hp 01&2 M3 4otal 5peratin" Income / )hp .!&6 M3 7et Income After ta* /)hp 1&1 M
Petitioners
- 8eirs of the deceased emplo(ees of )hile* Minin" Corporation, who, while wor$in" died as a result of
the cave9in that buried them in the tunnel of the mine&
- Families+ Floresca, Martine:, 5bra, ,illar, ;anu:a, Isla
0e/en'ant Philex
- )hile* Minin" Corporation <)hile*= > Incorporated in 111 and was listed on the )'? on 7ov& 6., 116&
)hile* Minin" operates the )adcal Mines in Ben"uet&
- 4he first under"round bloc$ cave operations in the Far ?ast
- )roduces copper concentrates containin" Cu, Au, A"&
0e/en'ant Mor/e
- 8on& @esus )& Morfe, )residin" @ud"e of Branch XIII, Court of First Instance of Manila
C1R2N2L2G3 2F 454N6*
- Prior and up to June 28, 1967
)hile* allowed "reat amount of water and mud to accummulate in an open pit area at the mine
above Bloc$ 0.9'91 which seeped throu"h and saturated the 6AAft column of bro$en ore and
roc$ below it&
4his resulted in tremendous pressure e*erted on the wor$in" spaces at 0.AA level&
- June 28, 1967: Cave - in
All under"round supports collapsed due to such pressure&
At about 0pm, appro* 1AA$ ftB of bro$en ores, roc$s, mud and water with surface boulders,
blasted throu"h the tunnels and flowed out and filled in, in a matter of appro* 1 minutes&
All of its men were trapped within its tunnels includin" those represented b( the petitioners&
5ut of the 0! total mine wor$ers, 1 escaped, 66 rescued within the ne*t 2 da(s, and 61 were left
mercilessl( to their fate even thou"h a "reat man( of them were still alive because )hile*
decided to abandon rescue operations&
- August 25, 1967, Payment were made to eirs e!"ept te eirs o# $% &artine' wo opted
insta((ment s"eme and te eirs o# )a'arito *(ores"a wo insisted tat tey are entit(ed to a
greater amount o# damages under te Civi( Code&
Floresca, et al. vs Philex Mining Corporation, et al.
- +"to,er 19, 1967, -ire"tor o# &ines #orwarded is report o# to .!e" $e" /a#ae( $a(as wi"
esta,(ised te "rimina( neg(igen"e and vio(ation o# (aw ,y Pi(e!%
- &ay 10,1968, Pi(e! #i(ed &otion to -ismiss a((eging tat te "auses o# a"tion are "overed ,y
1CA and C*2 as no 3urisdi"tion%
- &ay 27,1968, Petitioners #i(ed opposition "(aiming tat te "auses o# a"tion are not ,ased on
1CA ,ut on Civi( Code a((owing te award o# a"tua(, mora( and e!emp(ary damages%
- June 27, 1968, Case dismissa( on te ground tat it #a((s e!"(usive(y under te 3urisdi"tion o#
1or4men5s Compensation Commission%
- $eptem,er 26, 196, on petitioner5s &otion #or /e"onsideration, -e#endant &or#e re"onsidered
and set aside is order on June 27, 1968 and a((owed Pi(e! to #i(e an answer to te "omp(aint%
- -e"em,er 16, 1968, respondent Judge dismissed te "ase #or (a"4 o# 3urisdi"tion%
8e ruled that in accordance with the established %urisprudence, the Cor$men#s Compensation
Commission has e*clusive ori"inal %urisdiction over dama"e or compensation claims for wor$9
connected deaths or in%uries of wor$men or emplo(ees, irrespective of whether or not the
emplo(er was ne"li"ent, addin" that if the emplo(er#s ne"li"ence results in wor$9connected
deaths or in%uries, the emplo(er shall, pursuant to 'ection 09A of the Cor$men#s Compensation
Act, pa( additional compensation e-ual to 1AD of the compensation fi*ed in the Act&
- )ovem,er 26, 1976, date o# reso(ution stating te issue to ,e reso(ved ,y ami"i "uriae%
- August 6, 1978, Petitioner eirs o# )% *(ores"a #i(ed #or &otion to -ismiss on te ground tat
tey ave ami"a,(y sett(ed teir "(aim wit Pi(e!%
- $eptem,er 7, 1978, $upreme Court dismissed on(y te petition o# te eirs o# )% *(ores"a%
... R+ling
.ss+e "7 8hether or not CF. has 9+ris'iction to tr) the case.
- 4he former Court of First Instance has %urisdiction to tr( the case&
- 4he petitioners# complaint is not for compensation based on the Cor$men#s Compensation Act but a
complaint for dama"es <actual, e*emplar( and moral= in the total amount of ei"ht hundred twent(9five
thousand <)!61,AAA&AA= pesos&
- In ascertainin" whether or not the cause of action is in the nature of wor$men#s compensation claim or
a claim for dama"es pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code, the test is the averments or
alle"ations in the complaint <Belandres vs& ;ope: 'u"ar Mill, Co&, Inc&, 2 )hil& 1AA=&
- A contractual relationship e*ists between )hile* and the deceased emplo(ees& 4he alle"ed "ross and
rec$less ne"li"ence and deliberate failure that amount to bad faith on the part of )hile*, constitute a
breach of contract for which it ma( be held liable for dama"es&
.ss+e 7 8hether or not CF. /aile' to consi'er the 'istinction (et:een clai,s /or 'a,ages +n'er the
Civil Co'e an' clai,s /or co,pensation +n'er 8C!.
- 4he rationale in awardin" compensation under the Cor$men#s Compensation Act 'i//ers from that in
"ivin" dama"es under the Civil Code& 4he compensation acts are based on a theor( of compensation
distinct from the e*istin" theories of dama"es, pa(ments under the acts bein" made as compensation
and not as dama"es < C&@&'& 1.=&
Co,pensation - 8C! 0a,ages ; Civil Co'e
Eiven to miti"ate the harshness of industrial life for
the wor$man and his famil(&
?mplo(er is liable with or without ne"li"ence&
;iabilit( is created b( law&
Awarded to one as a vindication of the wron"ful
invasion of his ri"hts& Indemnit( recoverable b( a
person who has sustained in%ur( either in his
person, propert( or relative ri"hts, throu"h the act
or fault of another& <61 C&@&'& 016=
)resumption in favor of the emplo(ee& ?mplo(er
has the burden of proof&
Claimant for dama"es has the burden of proof
2
Floresca, et al. vs Philex Mining Corporation, et al.
Co,pensation - 8C! 0a,ages ; Civil Co'e
7o provision for an award of actual, moral and
e*emplar( dama"es&
Amount sou"ht over and above the provided b(
CCA
Compensation benefits to be paid for effects
caused b( factors outside the industrial plant of
emplo(er
;iabilit( of the emplo(er depends on breach of
contract or tort&
.ss+e 37 8hether the action o/ an in9+re' e,plo)ee or :or<er or his heirs in case o/ 'eath +n'er 8C!
is excl+sive &Restricte' to 8C!-, selective &choice o/ action (et:een 8C! or Civil Co'e, or c+,+lative
&(oth actions-.
2pinions o/ !,ici C+riae
Me,(ers o/ !,ici C+riae 2pinion
=+stice Man+al La>aro &!sst GM o/
G*.* Legal !//airs 0ept-
2nl) recover 'a,ages +n'er Civil Co'e
!tt). 4'gar'o !ngara &Pres. o/ ?P- 4xcl+sive onl) to *ec. % o/ 8C!
!tt). Froilan @ac+ngan &Co,,issioner
on 4lections, /or,erl) ?P La: Center
0irector-
*elective ; 1eirs have a right o/ choice to avail
o/ 8C! o/ to s+e in reg+lar co+rt
!tt). .srael @oco(o &6hen ?* o/ La(or- *a,e as !tt). @ac+ngan (+t speci/ie' that onl)
one re,e') can (e availe'.
- In )acana vs& Cebu Autobus Compan( <.6 'CFA 006= rulin", an in%ured wor$er has a choice of either
to recover from the emplo(er the fi*ed amounts set b( the Cor$men#s Compensation Act or to
prosecute an ordinar( civil action a"ainst the tortfeasor for hi"her dama"es but he cannot p+rs+e
(oth co+rses o/ action si,+ltaneo+sl)&
- Doctrine in the case of ?s"uerra vs& Muno: )alma <1A0 )hil& 1!6= on third9part( tortfeasor should
li$ewise appl( to the emplo(er9tortfeasor&
Dama"es recoverable under the Civil Code are much more e*tensive than the amounts that
ma( be awarded under the Cor$men#s Compensation Act&
- In this case, 'upreme Court held that the receipt of benefits under the Cor$men#s Compensation Act,
ma( not preclude them from brin"in" an action before the re"ular court because the( became
co"ni:ant of the fact that )hile* has been remiss in its contractual obli"ations with the deceased miners
onl( after receivin" compensation under the Act&
- 8ad petitioners been aware of said violation of "overnment rules and re"ulations b( )hile*, and of its
ne"li"ence, the( would not have sou"ht redress under the Cor$men#s Compensation Commission
which awarded a lesser amount for compensation&
- 4he choice of the first remed( was based on i"norance or a mista$e of fact, which nullifies the choice
as it was not an intelli"ent choice&
- 4he case should therefore be re,an'e' to the lo:er co+rt /or /+rther procee'ings. 8owever,
sho+l' the petitioners (e s+ccess/+l in their (i' (e/ore the lo:er co+rt, the pa),ents ,a'e
+n'er the 8or<,enAs Co,pensation !ct sho+l' (e 'e'+cte' /ro, the 'a,ages that ,a) (e
'ecree' in their /avor&
.ss+e 47 0issenting 2pinions &Melencio-1errera an' G+tierre>, =r.- ; 8hether or not the co+rt is
legislating in the present case.
- 4he Court does not le"islate in the case& It is therefore patent that "ivin" effect to the social %ustice
"uarantees of the Constitution, as implemented b( the provisions of the 7ew Civil Code, is not an
e*ercise of the power of law9ma$in", but is renderin" obedience to the mandates of the fundamental
law and the implementin" le"islation aforementioned&
- 8owever, Art& 12. of the 7ew ;abor Code which provides for the e*clusiveness and in place of all other
liabilities of the emplo(er to the emplo(ee unless otherwise provided, seems to diminish the ri"hts of
3
Floresca, et al. vs Philex Mining Corporation, et al.
the wor$ers and therefore collides with the social %ustice "uarantee of the Constitution and the liberal
provisions of the new Civil Code&
- 4hus, Art 0 of the 7ew ;abor Code <)D 7o&006= provides that Gall doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, includin" IFFs, shall be resoved in favor of labor&G
- 8ence, interpretation adopted in the cases of )acana, ?s"uerra and ,alencia <,alencia vs Manila Hacht
Club 6! 'CFA 260=, is /aith/+l to an' a'vances the social 9+stice g+arantees enshrine' in (oth
the "#3% an' "#B3 Constit+tion&
- 4he dissent seems to s+(or'inate the li/e o/ the la(orer to the propert) rights o/ the e,plo)er&
4he ri"ht to life is "uaranteed specificall( b( the due process clause of the Constitution& 4o relieve the
emplo(er from liabilit( for the death of his wor$ers arisin" from his "ross or wanton fault or failure to
provide safet( devices for the protection of his emplo(ees or wor$ers a"ainst the dan"ers which are
inherent in under"round minin", is to 'eprive the 'ecease' :or<er an' his heirs o/ the right to
recover in'e,nit) /or the loss o/ the li/e o/ the :or<er an' the conseC+ent loss to his /a,il)
:itho+t '+e process o/ la:&
- 4he dissent in effect con'ones an' there/ore enco+rages s+ch gross or :anton neglect on the
part o/ the e,plo)er to co,pl) with his le"al obli"ation to provide safet( measures for the protection
of the life, limb and health of his wor$er& ?ven from the moral viewpoint alone, such attitude is un9
Christian&
- 4he old socio9political9economic philosoph( of live9and9let9live is now superdesed b( the beni"n
Christian shibboleth of live-an'-help others to live& 4hose who profess to be Christians should not
adhere to Cain#s selfish affirmation that he is not his brother#s $eeper& In our civili:ation, each one of us
is our brother#s $eeper& 7o man is an island&
- In the 1!.2 case of )risle( vs& Fowler <. M7 1,11A reprint 1A.A= invo$ed b( the dissent,
4he )risle( case was decided in 1!.2 durin" the era of economic ro(alists and robber barons of
America& 5nl( ruthless, unfeelin" capitalistics and e"oistic reactionaries continue to pa(
obeisance to such un9Christian doctrine&
4he )risle( rule humiliates man and debases him3 because the decision derisivel( refers to the
lowl( wor$er as GservantG and utili:es with aristocratic arro"ance GmasterG for Gemplo(er&G It robs
man of his inherent di"nit( and dehumani:es him&
4o stress this affront to human di"nit(, the court onl( have to restate the -uotation from )risle(,
thus+ G4he mere relation of the master and the servant never can impl( an obli"ation on the part
of the master to ta$e more care of the servant than he ma( reasonabl( be e*pected to do
himself&G 4his is the ver( selfish doctrine that provo$ed the American Civil Car which "enerated
so much hatred and drew so much precious blood on American plains and valle(s from 1!61 to
1!60&
- GIdolatrous reverenceG for the letter of the law sacrifices the human bein"& 4he spirit of the law insures
man#s survival and ennobles him& In the words of 'ha$espeare, Gthe letter of the law $illeth3 its spirit
"iveth life&G
.ss+e %7 0issenting 2pinions &Melencio-1errera an' G+tierre>, =r.- - 8hether or not the co+rts can
legislate.
- Article of the 7ew Civil Code, which provides that G7o %ud"e or court shall decline to render %ud"ment
b( reason of the silence, obscurit( or insufficienc( of the laws& G
- @ustice 8olmes, Gdo and must le"islateG to fill in the "aps in the law3 because the mind of the le"islator,
li$e all human bein"s, is finite and therefore cannot envisa"e all possible cases to which the law ma(
appl( 7or has the human mind the infinite capacit( to anticipate all situations&
- Different views of Ereat e*pounders of the American Constitution+
Chief @ustice Marshall pronounced 9 GIt is emphaticall( the province and dut( of the @udicial
department to sa( what the law is <Marbur( vs& Madison I Cranch 162 1!A.=
Chief @ustice 8u"hes 9 Gthe Constitution is what the %ud"e sa(s it isI <Address on Ma( ., 1A2,
-uoted b( )resident Fran$lin Delano Foosevelt on March , 1.2=&
4
Floresca, et al. vs Philex Mining Corporation, et al.
@ustice Cardo:o who pronounced that G7o doubt the limits for the %ud"e are narrower& 8e
le"islates onl( between "aps& 8e fills the open spaces in the law& G <4he 7ature of the @udicial
)rocess, p& 11.=&
@ustice Fran$furter, Gthe courts breathe life, feeble or stron", into the inert pa"es of the
Constitution and all statute boo$s&G
- Both the 1.1 and 12. )hilippine Constitutions e*pressl( vest in the 'upreme Court the power to
review the validit( or constitutionalit( of an( le"islative enactment or e*ecutive act&
.... ?se o/ Nat+ral La:
.N64RPR46!6.54 ?*4
- Involved its utili:ation as an interpretive alembic or devise to e*press or put into effect the le"islative
intention&
- In the absence of a law on the matter the %ud"e has to decide the case on the basis of customs,
traditions, and the basic principles of fairness and e-uit(&
2PP2*.6.54 ?*4
- Involved refusin" to obe( a law contrar( to the precept of natural law not necessaril( for the purpose of
disobedience but to emphasi:e the fact that blind disobedience is not "ood either&
R4G?L!62R3 ?*4
- Footed in the ma*im lex injusta not est lex <an in%ust law is no law at all&=
- A statute or a re"ulation is null and void when it is contrar( to the suprapositive law even if it is not
consistent with superpositive norms of the Constitution&
=?*6.F.C!62R3 ?*4
- )recepts of %ustice and e-uit( above strict le"alism or form in providin" rules concernin" such le"al
concepts as -uietin" of title, reformation of instruments, estoppel, trusts and natural obli"ations&
5