D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. CA (2001)

D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. CA (2001)

G.R. No. 1387873

April 20, 2001

FACTS:

·       Petitioner: D.M. Consunji, Inc.

o   Counsels: Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon and San Jose Law Offices

·       Respondent: Court of Appeals and Maria J. Juego

o   Counsel: Manuel Y. Fausto

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

·       May 9, 1991: Maria Juego (Jose's widow) filed a complaint for damages against the deceased's employer D.M. Consunji, Inc. (RTC Pasig)

o   RTC: rendered decision in favor of the widow, ordering defendant to pay the plaintiff compensatory damages, loss of earnings, moral damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit

·       Court of Appeals: AFFIRMED decision of RTC

ISSUE/S

·       Whether or not the widow is barred from availing death benefits under the Civil Code having availed damages under the Labor Code

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT:

·       Argues that the private respondent had previously availed of the death benefits under the Labor Code and is therefore precluded from claiming form the deceased employer damages under the Civil Code.

o   Article 173 of the Labor Code: "Extent of liability"

·       When the employer avails of the State Insurance fund it shall be inclusive and in place of all other liabilities of the employer to the employee, he/she or their dependents or anyone otherwise entitled to receive damages on behalf of the employee/dependants

o   Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act: "Exclusive right to compensation"

HOLDING:

·       Held

o   Although SC ruled that recovery of damages under the Worker’s Compensation Act is a bar to recover under a civil action, the CA ruled that in this case, the widow had a right to file an ordinary action for civil actions because she was not aware and ignorant of her rights and courses of action.

o   She was not aware of her rights and remedies. Thus, her election to claim from the Insurance Fund does not waive her claim from the petitioner company.

o   The argument that ignorance of the law excuses no one is not applicable in this case because it is only applicable to mandatory and prohibitory laws.

JUDGMENT:

-        REMANDED to the RTC for determination of award.

-        REMANDED to the RTC (Pasig) to determine whether the award decreed in its decision is more than that of the ECC.

-        Should the reward be greater than the awarded by the ECC, payments already made to the private respondent pursuant to the labour code shall be deducted therefrom.

-        In all other respects, the decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.