3 HELD: NO. Mrs.

Juego did not lose her right to file a civil case for damages
DM Consunji v. CA against petitioner.
April 20, 2001 | GR No. 137873. | Retroactivity of Laws, Mandatory or
Prohibitory Laws, Waiver of Rights | Kapunan, J. The general rule is that by the Doctrine of Election of Remedies, a claimant
cannot simultaneously pursue recovery under the Labor Code and prosecute
Petitioners: D.M. Consunji, Inc. an ordinary course of action under the Civil Code. In short, the choice of one
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Maria Juego remedy is deemed as a waiver of the other. However, this case is within the
exception as ruled in Floresca v Philex Mining Corporation. According to the
RELEVANT DOCTRINE: A valid waiver is an intentional waiver of a Floresca exception, the Doctrine of Election of Remedies will not apply if the
known right and it presupposes that the waiving party has knowledge of first chosen remedy was based on ignorance or a mistake of fact as such
his/her rights, but he/she chooses not to assert them. Furthermore, Art. 3 of nullifies the choice for not being an intelligent choice.
the Civil Code, which provides that ignorance of the law excuses no one,
only applies to mandatory and prohibitory laws. Re: Waiver of Rights
It is the lack of knowledge of a material fact which nullifies the election of a
remedy that is the basis of the Floresca exception. A valid waiver is an
FACTS:
intentional relinquishment of a known right. It presupposes that the party has
1. Jose Juego was a construction worker of Petitioner who was
knowledge of his/her rights but chooses not to assert them. Thus, where one
woorking on a tower in Pasig City. On November 2, 1990, he died
lacks knowledge of a right, there is no basis upon which waive of it can rest.
due to falling 14 floors and being crushed by the platform he was on
A waiver of a right cannot be established by a consent given under a mistake
while working in the tower’s elevator core.
or misapprehension of fact.
2. He was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
On November 15, 1990, Respondent Mrs. Juego (deceased’s wife)
Alleging that there is a valid waiver made is a defense available to Petitioner.
accomplished the application for benefits from the ECC. The police
It is not incumbent upon Mrs. Juego to allege in her complaint that she had
who investigated the deceased’s death came out with their report on
already availed of the benefits from the ECC. It is the Petitioner who has to
November 25, 1990. Petitioner filed the application for benefits from
burden of raising the issue of a possible valid waiver made. Petitioner should
the ECC on behalf of Mrs. Juego on November 27, 1990.
have shown that Mrs. Juego had actual or constructive knowledge of her
3. On May 9, 1991, Mrs. Juego filed a complaint for damages against
rights or of all material facts upon which they depended when she made the
Petitioner with the RTC of Pasig. Petitioner raised as a defense that
supposed waiver by choosing to pursue the benefits from the ECC.
Mrs. Jeugo had already availed of workman’s compensation from the
In this case, there was no proof that Mrs. Juego knew that the deceased died
ECC.
in an elevator crash when she accomplished the application for benefits from
4. Nevertheless, the RTC ruled in favor of Mrs. Juego.
the ECC (Nov 15). She only found out after the police came out with their
5. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.
report (Nov 25). 2 days after, Petitioner filed the application for ECC
benefits. There was no showing that Mrs. Juego knew of the remedies
ISSUE: W/N Respondent Mrs. Juego has waived her right to file a civil case
available to her; on the contrary she testified that she was not aware of her
for damages against petition?
rights. In short, Mrs. Juego had no knowledge that there may be civil liability
at the time she accomplished the application for benefits from the ECC and
this lack of knowledge negated the supposed waiver and triggers the
application of the Floresco exception.

Re: Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws

Petitioner’s argument that Mrs. Juego cannot claim ignorance of the Floresco
decision as such was a judicial decision forming part of the Philippine legal
system is misplaced. Article 3 of the Civil Code, which provides that
ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith is limited
only to mandatory and prohibitory laws. The Floresca decision, in so far as it
allows claimants a choice of remedies, is neither mandatory nor prohibitory.
Thus, ignorance thereof cannot be held against Mrs. Juego.

WHEREFORE, the case has been remanded to the RTC.