FLORESCA VS PHILEX MINING CORPORATIONPetitioners:

PERFECTO S. FLORESCA, in his own behalf and on behalf of the minors, et. al.
Respondents:
PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, et. al.

FACTS:
1. Petitioners are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining
Corporation (PMC), who,while working at its copper mines underground at
Tuba, Benguet, died as a result of the cave-inthat buried them in the tunnels
of the mine. The complaint alleges that Philex, in violation ofgovernment
rules and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the
requiredprecautions for the protection of the lives of its men working
underground.
2. A motion to dismiss was filed by Philex alleging that the causes of action of
petitioners based onan industrial accident are covered by the provisions of
the Worker’s Compensation Act (Act 3428,as amended by RA 772) and
that the CFI has no jurisdiction over the case.
3. Petitioners filed an opposition to the said motion to dismiss claiming that the
causes of action arenot based on the provisions of the WCA but on the
provisions of the Civil Code allowing the awardof actual, moral, and
exemplary damages.
4. CFI dismissed the case on the ground that it falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Worker’s Compensation Commission. Said commission has
sole jurisdiction over damage claims for workconnected deaths, irrespective
of whether or not the employer was negligent. Hence, the petitionwith the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the action of an injured employee or that of his heirs in case of death
under theWorkmen ’s Compensation Act is exclusive, selective, or cumulative,
meaning, whether they have a rightof selection or choice of action between availing
of the worker’s right under the Workmen’sCompensation Act and suing in the
regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages by virtue of negligence or
fault.
HELD:
The trial court's order of dismissal is hereby reversed and set aside and the
case is remanded to itfor further proceedings. Should a greater amount of
damages be decreed in favor of herein petitioners,the payments already made to
them pursuant to the workmen's compensation act shall be deducted. Nocosts.1.

The Court held that notwithstanding the provisions of the Workmen’s

Compensation Act, theheirs of the employees may still file an action for damages
against Philex for negligence under theCivil Code. This is because the rationale in
awarding compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act differs from that
in giving damages under the Civil Code 2. The Court also justified that it is not
legislating in its decision, and is merely interpreting theWorkmen’s Compensation
Act in light of the constitutional policy on protecting labor and Article 10 of the
Civil Code which states that “in case of doubt in the interpretation or application
oflaws it is presumed that the law making body intended right and justice to
prevail.