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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Floresca v. Philex

    Uploaded by

    G S
    The heirs of employees who died in a cave-in at a mining corporation sued the corporation for damages. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the Workmen's Compensation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court failed to distinguish between claims for damages and claims for compensation. The complaint alleged gross negligence by the corporation, making it a claim for damages under the Civil Code within the jurisdiction of regular courts, not a compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to the trial court.

    Copyright:

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

    Floresca v. Philex

    Uploaded by

    G S
    2K views1 page
    The heirs of employees who died in a cave-in at a mining corporation sued the corporation for damages. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the Workmen's Compensation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court failed to distinguish between claims for damages and claims for compensation. The complaint alleged gross negligence by the corporation, making it a claim for damages under the Civil Code within the jurisdiction of regular courts, not a compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to the trial court.

    Original Description:

    Persons and family relations; digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The heirs of employees who died in a cave-in at a mining corporation sued the corporation for damages. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the Workmen's Compensation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court failed to distinguish between claims for damages and claims for compensation. The complaint alleged gross negligence by the corporation, making it a claim for damages under the Civil Code within the jurisdiction of regular courts, not a compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    Floresca v. Philex

    Uploaded by

    G S
    The heirs of employees who died in a cave-in at a mining corporation sued the corporation for damages. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the Workmen's Compensation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court failed to distinguish between claims for damages and claims for compensation. The complaint alleged gross negligence by the corporation, making it a claim for damages under the Civil Code within the jurisdiction of regular courts, not a compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to the trial court.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    L-30642 April 30, 1985


    PERFECTO S. FLORESCA, in his own behalf and on behalf of the minors ROMULO and NESTOR S.
    FLORESCA, et al.
    vs. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION and HON. JESUS P. MORFE, Presiding Judge of Branch XIII, Court of
    First Instance of Manila, respondents.

    Facts: Petitioners are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation who, while
    working at its copper mines underground operations at Tuba, Benguet on June 28, 1967, died as a result
    of the cave-in that buried them in the tunnels of the mine. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Philex,
    in violation of government rules and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the required
    precautions for the protection of the lives of its men working underground. However, the respondent
    Judge dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and ruled that in accordance with the established
    jurisprudence, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over
    damage or compensation claims for work-connected deaths or injuries of workmen or employees,
    irrespective of whether or not the employer was negligent, adding that if the employer’s negligence
    results in work-connected deaths or injuries, the employer shall, pursuant to Section 4-A of the
    Workmen’s Compensation Act, pay additional compensation equal to 50% of the compensation fixed in
    the Act.

    Issue: Whether or not the lower court failed to consider the distinction between claims for damages
    under the Civil Code and claims for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

    Ruling: Yes, it should be underscored that the petitioners’ complaint is not for compensation based on
    the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but a complaint for damages. The workmen's compensation refers to
    liability for compensation for loss resulting from injury, disability or death of the working man through
    industrial accident or disease, without regard to the fault or negligence of the employer, while the claim
    for damages under the Civil Code which petitioners pursued in the regular court, refers to the
    employer's liability for reckless and wanton negligence resulting in the death of the employees and for
    which the regular court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.

    Petitioners did not invoke the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to entitle them to
    compensation thereunder. The complaint instead alleges gross and reckless negligence and deliberate
    failure on the part of Philex to protect the lives of its workers as a consequence of which a cave-in
    occurred resulting in the death of the employees working underground. Settled is the rule that in
    ascertaining whether or not the cause of action is in the nature of workmen’s compensation claim or a
    claim for damages pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code, the test is the averments or allegations in
    the complaint.

    Fallo: Wherefore, the trial court’s order of dismissal is hereby reversed and set aside and the case is
    remanded to it for 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.

    You might also like