Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 117 views

    Consunji vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent
    This case involved a construction worker, Jose Juego, who fell 14 floors to his death from a construction site. His widow, Maria Juego, filed a complaint for damages against Jose's employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer argued that Maria had already received benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The trial court ruled in Maria's favor. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself", applied as the accident was the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. While workers' claims are usually only under the Workmen's Compensation Law, the Court found this was an exception as Maria was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Consunji vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent
    117 views2 pages
    This case involved a construction worker, Jose Juego, who fell 14 floors to his death from a construction site. His widow, Maria Juego, filed a complaint for damages against Jose's employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer argued that Maria had already received benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The trial court ruled in Maria's favor. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself", applied as the accident was the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. While workers' claims are usually only under the Workmen's Compensation Law, the Court found this was an exception as Maria was

    Original Title

    CONSUNJI VS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a construction worker, Jose Juego, who fell 14 floors to his death from a construction site. His widow, Maria Juego, filed a complaint for damages against Jose's employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer argued that Maria had already received benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The trial court ruled in Maria's favor. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself", applied as the accident was the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. While workers' claims are usually only under the Workmen's Compensation Law, the Court found this was an exception as Maria was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    117 views2 pages

    Consunji vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent
    This case involved a construction worker, Jose Juego, who fell 14 floors to his death from a construction site. His widow, Maria Juego, filed a complaint for damages against Jose's employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer argued that Maria had already received benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The trial court ruled in Maria's favor. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself", applied as the accident was the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. While workers' claims are usually only under the Workmen's Compensation Law, the Court found this was an exception as Maria was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CONSUNJI VS.

    COURT OF APPEALS
    GR No. 137873, 20 April 2001

    FACTS:
    At around 1:30 p.m., November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of D.
    M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his
    death. On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego’s widow, Maria, filed a complaint for damages
    at the RTC of Pasig against the deceased’s employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc.

    The employer raised, among other defenses, the widow’s prior availment of the
    benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of
    the widow Maria Juego.

    ISSUES:
    Whether or not:

    1. The petitioner can be held liable under the grounds of negligence.


    2. The injured employee or his heirs have the right to choose between availing
    themselves of the worker’s right under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and
    suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages in cases of
    employer’s negligence.
     
    HELD:
    The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “the thing or transaction speaks for itself”
    recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof. It
    has the following requisites: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not
    ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency
    which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged
    with negligence; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any
    voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. All the
    requisites for the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur are present in the case
    at bar, thus a reasonable presumption or inference of appellant’s negligence
    arises.
    Claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment
    could be filed only under the Workmen´s Compensation Law. In availing its
    remedies, claimants are deemed to have waived their  right of the remedies
    provided by other laws. However, this is an exception because private respondent
    was unaware of petitioner´s negligence when she filed her claim for death
    benefits, otherwise, she would have opted to avail of a better remedy than that of
    which she already had.
    CUI vs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY
    G.R. No. L-15127

    30 May 1961

    FACTS:
    Emeterio Cui enrolled in the defendant university where plaintiff finished his law
    studies up to the first semester of his fourth year. Plaintiff was awarded with
    scholarship grants and his tuition fees were returned to him at the end of each
    semester. Plaintiff left the defendant’s law school and enrolled for the last
    semester of his fourth year at the College of Law of Abad Santos University where
    he graduated.

    He applied to take the bar examination in with which he needed the transcript of
    records from defendant Arellano University. The defendant demanded that he
    had paid back the P1, 033.87, noting the contract that he signed stated that in
    consideration of the scholarship granted to him by the University, he waives his
    right to transfer to another school without having refunded to the defendant the
    equivalent of the scholarship cash.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the contract between Cui and the respondent university, whereby
    the former waives his right to transfer to another school without having refunded
    to the defendant the equivalent of the scholarship is valid or not.

    HELD:
    The contract of waiver between the plaintiff and respondent on September 10,
    1951, is a direct violation of Memorandum No. 38 and hence null and void. The
    contract was contrary to sound policy and civic honesty. The policy enunciated in
    Memorandum No.38, 1949 is sound policy.
    When students are given full or partial scholarships it is understood that such
    scholarships are merited and earned. The amount in tuition and other fees
    corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged to the
    recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to another
    institution.

    You might also like