Vda. de Severo vs. Go

JULITA T. VDA.
DE SEVERO, of defendants and in his

ANTONIETE SEVERO, BERNADIT attempts to resist and prevent
SEVERO, RICARDO SEVERO, JR. the subject car from being
and MARISOL SEVERO taken away, the said
vs. carnappers shot and killed the
LUNINGNING FELICIANO GO said Ricardo Severo, thus his
AND JOAQUIN GO, and THE death arose out of and in the
HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST course of his employment with
INSTANCE OF SAMAR, BRANCH V defendants;
G.R. No. L-44330 | January 29, 1988 | b. That plaintiffs herein depend
Bidin, J. solely and rely completely upon
the late Ricardo Severo for
their financial needs and means
FACTS: of living;
The late Ricardo Severo was an c. That for the loss of the life of
employee of herein private said Ricardo Severo, plaintiffs
respondents Luningning Feliciano Go herein are entitled to
and Joaquin Go, first as baker of indemnification or death
'Joni's Cakes and Pastries," an compensation from defendants;
enterprise owned by respondents
located at 1634 P. Guevarra Street, d. That because of the sudden and
Santa Cruz, Manila and finally, as violent death which Ricardo
driver-mechanic from 1961 up to Severo met in the faithful
February 16, 1972. On the latter date, service to his employers the
unidentified armed men forcibly took defendants herein, the plaintiffs
away and/or carnapped the car owned herein suffered moral damages
by respondents and driven by Ricardo in the form of deep grief,
Severo who, in his efforts to resist the lonesomeness, mental anguish
carnappers, was shot and killed by the and shock; and
latter. Up to now, the parties
responsible for Severo's death have e. That defendants manifested
not been Identified nor apprehended. bad faith when they willfully
failed to comply with their
On September 18, 1974, herein promise that they would
petitioners, the widow and minor properly compensate plaintiffs
children of Ricardo Severo, filed an herein for the death of Ricardo
action against respondents-employers Severo, thereby plaintiffs were
before the trial court for "Death compelled to institute this suit
Compensation and Damages," the whereby they incur litigation
complaint inter alia alleging: expenses and to contract the
services of their counsel on a
a. While the said Ricardo Severo contingent basis.
was in the actual discharge of
his duties as an employee of Private respondents filed a motion to
defendants that is, he was dismiss alleging that the lower court
driving the car of defendants, has no jurisdiction over the claim of
carnappers forcefully took away petitioner and that the complaint
and/or carnapped the said car failed to state a cause of action.
Petitioners filed a reply (opposition) Yes, the regular courts have
contending that their claim is not for jurisdiction over petitioners’ cause of
compensation under the Workmen's action, i.e. for damages under Article
Compensation Act but for damages 1711 and Article 21 of the Civil Code.
under Article 1711 and Article 21 of
the Civil Code, hence, cognizable by The ruling in the case of Robles vs.
the regular courts. Yap Wing that the action of the
injured employee or that of his heirs
The respondent court issued an order in case of his death is restricted to
stating that petitioners' cause of seeking the limited compensation
action falls within the purview of the provided under the Workmen's
Workmen's Compensation Act and the Compensation Act relied upon by the
proper forum was the Workmen's trial court, no longer controls. The
Compensation Commission. It Court has abandoned the same in the
declared itself without jurisdiction recent case of Ysmael Maritime
following the Supreme Court’s ruling Corporation vs. Hon. Celso Avelino,
in the case of Robles vs. Yap Wing, L- G.R. No. L-43674, promulgated on
20442, October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA June 30, 1987, citing the case of
267, to wit: Floresca vs. Philex Mining Company,
L-30642, April 30, 1985, 136 SCRA
As provided in Section 46 of 141, viz.:
R.A. No. 722 as amended, 'the
Workmen's Compensation shall In the recent case of Floresca
have jurisdiction to hear and vs. Philex Mining Company
decide claims for compensation involving a complaint for
under the Workmen's damages for the death of five
Compensation Act, subject to miners in a cave-in on June 28,
appeal to the Supreme Court. ... 1967, the Court was confronted
In relation to this, Section 5 of with three divergent opinions
the Act provides that the rights on the exclusivity rule as
and remedies granted by this presented by several amici
Act to an employee by reason of curiae. However, the view that
a personal injury entitling him was adopted by the majority in
to compensation shall exclude the Floresca case was that the
all other rights and remedies action is selective and the
accruing to an employee, his employee or his heirs have a
personal representatives, choice of availing themselves of
dependents or nearest of kin the benefits under the WCA or
against the employer under the of suing in the regular courts
Civil Code or other laws, under the Civil Code for higher
because of said injury. damages from the employer by
reason of his negligence. But
once the election has been
ISSUE: Whether or not the exercised, the employee or his
regular courts have jurisdiction over heirs are no longer free to opt
petitioners’ cause of action for the other remedy. In other
words, the employee cannot
pursue both actions
RULING: simultaneously. In so doing, the
Court rejected the doctrine of
exclusivity of the rights and
remedies granted by the WCA
as laid down in the Robles case.
The employee or his heirs have the

choice of cause of action and
corresponding relief, i.e., either an
ordinary action for damages before
the regular courts or a special claim
for limited compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act before
the Workmen's Compensation
Commission. However, this right of
choice is qualified in that the
employee should be held to the
particular remedy in which he has
staked his fortunes and must pursue
even his alternative claim for
compensation exclusively in the same
regular courts once he has opted to
seek his remedy there rather than in
the Workmen's Compensation
Commission. This is what the
petitioners did in filing their
complaint for "Death Compensation
and Damages" before respondent
Court. Petitioners have opted to seek
their remedy before the regular court.
Their demand for compensation is
predicated on the employer's liability
for the death of their employee
(Ricardo Severo) imposed by Article
1711 of the Civil Code which reads:
Art. 1711. Owners of

enterprises and other
employers are obliged to pay
compensation for the death of
or injuries to their laborers,
workmen, mechanics or other
employees even though the
event may have been purely
accidental or entirely due to
fortuitous cause if the death or
personal injury arose out of and
in the course of employment ...
Petitioner's claim for compensation

based on the Civil Code pertain to the
jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Vda. de Severo vs. Go

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda. de Severo vs. Go

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda. de Severo vs. Go

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JULITA T. VDA.

DE SEVERO, of defendants and in his

The employee or his heirs have the

Art. 1711. Owners of

Petitioner's claim for compensation

You might also like