FLORESCA V. PHILEX MINING CORP.

G.R. No. L-30642, April 30, 1985

I. FACTS
 A mining project of PHILEX resulted in an accidental collapse of all underground supports
allegedly due to gross and reckless negligence and imprudence, and deliberate failure to take
the required precautions of the company
o Out of 48 mine workers, 5 survived, 22 were rescued in the next 7 days, and 21 died
 Heirs of those who died filed a case to the Court of Instance of Manila
 PETITIONER’S CASE (NAZARITO FLORESCA)
o Art. 2176, Civil Code Causes of actions are based on the provisions of the Civil
Code allowing the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages based on gross
negligence of PHILEX on the safety of its employees resulting to death and injuries
 RESPONDENT’S CASE
o Section 5 & 46, Workmen’s Compensation Act: The causes of action of petitioners
based on an industrial accident are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
which was not in the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, and not the Civil Code
o Manalo v. Foster Wheeler: All claims of workmen against their employer for
damages due to accidents suffered in the course of employment shall be investigated
and adjudicated by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, subject to appeal to
the Supreme Court
o PHILEX voluntarily paid the compensation due the petitioners and all the payments
have been excepted in behalf of the deceased minors, exactly heirs of Nazarito
Floresca
 Court of First Instance dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction

II. ISSUES
 Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction - YES
 Whether the lower court erred in failing to consider the clear distinction between claims for
damages under the Civil Code and claims for compensation under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act - YES

III. RULING
 The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the case
 The trial court’s order of dismissal is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded
to it for further proceedings.

IV. RATIO
 The complaint alleges gross and reckless negligence and deliberate failure on the part of
PHILEX to protect the lives of its workers because of which a cave-in occurred resulting in
the death of the employees working underground; Test is the averments or allegations in the
complaint
 There exists a contractual relationship between PHILEX and its employees; negligence
constitutes a breach of contract for which PHILEX may be held liable for damages
 Compensation is given to mitigate the harshness and insecurity of industrial life for the
workman and his family. Hence, an employer is liable whether negligence exists or not since
 liability is created by law. On the other hand, damages are awarded to one as a vindication of
the wrongful invasion of his rights.
 No-fault liability: Under WCA, the accident should be caused by factors outside of the
industrial plant of the employer; under the Civil Code, the liability of the employer depends
on breach of contract
 Although other petitioners received the benefits under the WCA, they may still bring an
action before the regular court. The choice of the first remedy was based on ignorance or a
mistake of fact, which nullifies a choice as it was not an intelligent choice. However, should
they be successful, the compensations they received should be deducted from the damages
awarded to them.
 The 1935 Constitution guarantees social justice and priority of labor
 Judicial legislation is often necessary to fill in the gaps left by the legislators in drafting the
law and in the protection of public interest