G.R. No.

137873 
April 20, 2001

D. M. CONSUNJI, INC., petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA J. JUEGO, respondents.

OBJECTIVE:
D.M. Consunji, Inc. seeks reversal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by CA, in
favor of the widow Maria Juego, ordering the petitioner to pay plaintiff.

FACTS:
Around 1:30PM of November 2, 1990, Jose Juergo, a construction worker of D.M. Consunji Inc. fell 14
floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City.  He was immediately rushed to Rizal Medical Center
in Pasig City. The attending physician, Dr. Errol de Yzo, pronounce Jose dead on arrival (DOA) at
around 2:15PM.

Jose Juergo, together with Jessie Jaluag and Delso Destajo, performing their work as carpenter at the
elevator core of the 14th floor of Tower D, Renaissance Tower Building were on board a platform. 
Jose was crushed to death when the platform fell due to removal or looseness of the pin, which was
merely inserted to the connecting points of the chain block and platform but without a safety lock. 
Luckily, Jessie and Delso jumped out of safety.

PO3 Rogelio Villanueva of the Eastern Police District investigated the tragedy and filed report dated
Nov. 25, 1990. Maria Juergo, Jose’s widow filed a complaint on May 9, 1991 for damages in the RTC
and was rendered a favorable decision to receive support from D.M. Consunji.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff, as follows:

1. P50,000.00 for the death of Jose A. Juego.

2. P10,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages.
3. P464,000.00 for the loss of Jose A. Juego’s earning capacity.
4. P100,000.00 as moral damages.
5. P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED

D. M. Consunji now seeks the reversal of the CA decision on the following grounds:

• THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE POLICE REPORT WAS
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF PETITIONER.

• THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA
LOQUITOR [sic] IS APPLICABLE TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF
PETITIONER.

• THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER IS PRESUMED

NEGLIGENT UNDER ARTICLE 2180 OF THE CIVIL CODE, AND

• THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT PRECLUDED

FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL CODE.

ISSUE: 
W/N private respondent is barred from availing of deaths benefits under the Civil Code after
recovering from damages provided under the Labor Code.

RULING:
The decision of the CA is affirmed.

RATIONALE:
The Supreme Court has already ruled in various cases that a recovery of damages under the Worker’s
Compensation Act is a bar to a recovery under an ordinary civil action. It ruled that an injured worker
has a choice of either remedies. The Supreme Court allowed some exceptions. In the case at bar, the
CA ruled that the widow had a right to file an ordinary action for civil actions because she was not
aware and was ignorant of his rights and courses of action.

When a party having knowledge of the facts makes an election between inconsistent remedies, the
election is final and bars any action, suit, or proceeding inconsistent with the elected remedy, in the
absence of fraud by the other party. The first act of election acts as a bar. Equitable in nature, the
doctrine of election of remedies is designed to mitigate possible unfairness to both parties. It rests on
the moral premise that it is fair to hold people responsible for their choices. The purpose of the
doctrine is not to prevent any recourse to any remedy, but to prevent a double redress for a single
wrong. The choice of a party between inconsistent remedies results in a waiver by election.

However, waiver requires knowledge of the facts basic to the exercise of the right waived, with an
awareness of its consequences. That a waiver is made knowingly and intelligently waiver when that
person knows that a right exist and has adequate knowledge upon which to make an intelligent
decision.

In the case at bar, the widow was not aware of her rights and remedies and thus her election to claim
from the Insurance Fund does not constitute a waiver on her part to claim from the petitioner-
company. Petitioner’s argument that ART. 3 of the Civil Code, stating that “Ignorance of the law
excuses no one” cannot stand. The Supreme Court ruled that the application of Article 3 is limited to
mandatory and prohibitory laws. This may be deduced from the language of the provision, which,
notwithstanding a person’s ignorance, does not excuse his or her compliance with the laws. The rule
in Floresca allowing private respondent a choice of remedies neither mandatory nor prohibitory.
Accordingly, widow’s ignorance thereof cannot be held against her.