Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 143 views

    DIGEST - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Dae Joseco
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code despite having previously received benefits from the State Insurance Fund for her husband's work-related death. [1] The Court found that the respondent was unaware of the petitioner's negligence and her rights when she initially claimed benefits. [2] As she made the initial claim due to a mistake of fact and without knowledge of her rights, she did not waive her right to further recovery under the Civil Code. [3] The case was remanded to determine if the damages awarded exceeded those from the State Insurance Fund.

    Copyright:

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

    DIGEST - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Dae Joseco
    143 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code despite having previously received benefits from the State Insurance Fund for her husband's work-related death. [1] The Court found that the respondent was unaware of the petitioner's negligence and her rights when she initially claimed benefits. [2] As she made the initial claim due to a mistake of fact and without knowledge of her rights, she did not waive her right to further recovery under the Civil Code. [3] The case was remanded to determine if the damages awarded exceeded those from the State Insurance Fund.

    Original Title

    DIGEST_D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. vs. CA

    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 Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code despite having previously received benefits from the State Insurance Fund for her husband's work-related death. [1] The Court found that the respondent was unaware of the petitioner's negligence and her rights when she initially claimed benefits. [2] As she made the initial claim due to a mistake of fact and without knowledge of her rights, she did not waive her right to further recovery under the Civil Code. [3] The case was remanded to determine if the damages awarded exceeded those from the State Insurance Fund.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    143 views3 pages

    DIGEST - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Dae Joseco
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code despite having previously received benefits from the State Insurance Fund for her husband's work-related death. [1] The Court found that the respondent was unaware of the petitioner's negligence and her rights when she initially claimed benefits. [2] As she made the initial claim due to a mistake of fact and without knowledge of her rights, she did not waive her right to further recovery under the Civil Code. [3] The case was remanded to determine if the damages awarded exceeded those from the State Insurance Fund.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    University of the Philippines College of Law

    JOSECO, DAERYLLE G.

    Case Name D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. , petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS

    Topic Article 6 of NCC: Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public
    order, public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a
    right recognized by law.

    Case No. | Date [G.R. No. 137873. April 20, 2001.]

    Nature of the Petition for reversal of CA’s ruling granting damages to the respondent.
    Case

    Ponente KAPUNAN, J :

    Doctrine Waiver requires a knowledge of the facts basic to the exercise of the right waived,
    with an awareness of its consequences. That a waiver is made knowingly and
    intelligently must be illustrated on the record or by the evidence

    Petitioner D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., petitioner

    Respondents COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA J. JUEGO, respondents.

    RELEVANT FACTS

     D.M. Consunji Inc. is seeking the reversal of the decision of the CA affirming the RTC decision
    which ordered it to pay damages to the Maria Juego -- private respondent and wife of the late
    Jose A. Juego who was a construction worker of D.M. Consunji Inc. While he was working at the
    elevator core of the 14th floor of the Renaissance Tower, the hanging platform he was on fell and
    crushed him to death. The police report disclosed that the falling of the platform was due to the
    removal or getting loose of the pin which was merely inserted to the connecting points of the
    chain block and platform but without a safety lock.
     Thereafter, Jose Juego’s widow, Maria, filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner.
    Petitioner raised, among other defenses, the widow’s prior availment of the benefits from the
    State Insurance Fund, thereby precluding her from claiming damages under the Civil Code. And
    that Maria could not assail that she does not know of the remedies available to her which violate
    Article 3 of the Civil code.
     The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego.
     On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, finding the petitioner corporation negligent.

    RATIO DECIDENDI

    “Whether or not the private responded precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code
    because of her prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund?

    No.
    The respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code.

    When a party having knowledge of the facts makes an election between inconsistent remedies, the
    election is final in the absence of fraud by the other party. The choice of a party between inconsistent
    remedies results in a waiver by election of the alternative remedy.

    Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. It must be generally shown by the party
    claiming a waiver that the person against whom the waiver is asserted had at the time actual or
    constructive knowledge of the existence of the party’s rights or of all material facts upon which they
    depended.

    As a general rule a claimant has a choice of either to recover from the employer the fixed amounts set by
    the Workmen’s Compensation Act or to prosecute an ordinary civil action against the tort fees or for
    higher damages but he cannot pursue both courses of action simultaneously. An exception to said rule is
    where a claimant who has already been paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act may still sue for
    damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening facts or developments occurring after he
    opted for the first remedy.

    In the case at bar, the CA held that private respondent’s case came under the exception because private
    respondent was unaware of petitioner’s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the
    State Insurance Fund. This is a mistake of fact that will make this case fall under the exception. The CA
    further held that she was also unaware of her rights because she testified that she only reached elementary
    school and did not know what damages could be recovered from the death of her husband; and that she
    did not know that she may also recover from the Civil Code more than from the Employee Compensation
    Commission.

    Petitioner’s argument under Article 3 has no merit as the application of Article 3 is limited to
    mandatory and prohibitory laws. The rule in Floresca (jurisprudence) allowing private respondent a
    choice of remedies is neither mandatory nor prohibitory. Accordingly, her ignorance thereof cannot be
    held against her.

    Hence, the respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code as she made a
    waiver by election under a clear mistake of fact and without knowledge of her rights.

    RULING
    WHEREFORE, the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City to determine whether
    the award decreed in its decision is more than that of the ECC. Should the award decreed by the trial court
    be greater than that awarded by the ECC, payments already made to private respondent pursuant to the
    Labor Code shall be deducted therefrom. In all other respects, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is
    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like