UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons and Family Relations

J 2026 Lozada-Marquez

Case Name DM. Consunji, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Topic Waiver of rights
Case No. | Date April 20, 2001
Ponente Kapunan, J.
Case Summary DM Consunji seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of
RTC in favor of Maria Juego, the widow of Jose Juego – a construction worker of DM Consunji who
died after dropping from the 14th floor.

Doctrine ● Article 3 of the Civil Code: Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith
● Article 6 of the Civil Code: “Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.”
● Article 2035 of the Civil Code: “Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall
be valid:
● (1) The civil status of persons;
● (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
● (3) Any ground for legal separation;
● (4) Future support;
● (5) The jurisdiction of courts;
● (6) Future legitime."
Where one lacks knowledge of a right, there is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest. A person
makes a knowing and intelligent waiver when that person knows that a right exists and has adequate
knowledge upon which to make an intelligent decision. Waiver requires a knowledge of the facts
basic to the exercise of the right waived, with an awareness of its consequences.

Facts ● On November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of D.M. Consunji, Inc. fell 14 floors
to his death being crushed by the hanging platform he was on.
● Maria, Jose Juego’s widow, received death benefits from the Employee’s Compensation
Commission starting January 2, 1991.
● On May 9, 1991, Maria filed a complaint a complaint for damages against D.M. Consunji in the
RTC.

Issue ● WHETHER or NOT Maria Juego can claim damages under the Civil Ruling
Code, a right that was waived after availing the benefits of the State
Insurance Fund.

Ratio YES.

In Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation, the court said that a claimant cannot simultaneously
pursue recovery under the Labor Code and prosecute an ordinary course of action under the Civil
Code. 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 opting for the first remedy. To note, private respondent was unaware
of petitioner’s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from State Insurance Fund.

Waiver requires a knowledge of the facts basic to the exercise of the right waived, with an awareness

2
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons and Family Relations
J 2026 Lozada-Marquez

of its consequences. That a waiver is made knowingly and intelligently must be illustrated on the
record or by the evidence.

Maria’s ignorance of her right cannot be held against her as Article 3 of the Civil Code is limited to
mandatory and prohibitory laws. The rule in Floresca allowing private respondent a choice of
remedies is neither mandatory nor prohibitory.

Disposition ● WHEREFORE, the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City to determine
whether the award decreed in its decision is more than that of the ECC. Should the award
decreed by the trial court be greater than that awarded by the ECC, payments already made to
private respondent pursuant to the Labor Code shall be deducted therefrom. In all other respects,
the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Dissenting Opinions ● Insert