Ysmael Maritime Corporation vs. Avelino

151 SCRA 333

FACTS;

On December 22, 1971, Rolando Lim, a licensed second mate, died when the vessel he was on board ran a ground and sank near Sabtan, Batanes. The vessel was owned by petitioner Ysmael Maritime Corporation. The parents of the deceased claiming that the untimely death of their son was due to the negligence of the petitioner sued the petitioner in the CFI for damages. By way of affirmative defense, petitioner claimed that the private respondents had already been compensated by the Workman’s Compensation Commission (WCC) for the same incident, for which reason they are now precluded from seeking other remedies against the same employer under the Civil Code.

ISSUE:  

Whether the compensation remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (WCA), and now under the Labor Code, for work-connected death or injuries sustained by an employee ,is exclusive of the other remedies under the Civil Code.

HELD:

In the recent case of Floresca v. Philex Mining Company, the Court was confronted with three divergent opinions on the exclusivity rule.   One view is that the injured employee or his heirs, in case of death, may initiate an action to recover damages (not compensation under the Workman’s Compensation Act) with the regular courts on the basis of negligence of the employer pursuant to the Civil Code. Another view is that the remedy of an employee for work-connected injury or accident is exclusive in accordance with Section 5 of WCA. The third view is that the action is selective and the employee or his heirs have a choice of availing themselves of the benefits under the WCA or of suing in the regular courts under the Code for higher damages from the employer by reason of his negligence. But once the election has been exercised, the employee or his heirs are no longer free to opt for the other remedy. The Court rejected the doctrine of exclusivity of the rights and remedies granted by the WCA. As thus applied to the case at bar, respondent Lim spouses cannot be allowed to maintain their present action to recover additional damages against petitioner under the Civil Code. In open court, respondent admitted that they had previously filed a claim for death benefits with the WCC and had received the compensation payable to them under the WCA. It is therefore clear that the respondents had not only opted to recover under the Act but they had also been duly paid. At the very least, a sense of fair play would demand that if a person entitled to a choice of remedies made a first election and accepted the benefits thereof; he should no longer be allowed to exercise the second option. Having staked his fortunes on a particular remedy, he is precluded from pursuing the alternate course, at least until the prior claim is rejected by the Compensation Commission.