8/20/2019 Robles v Yap Wing

1/3

1 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]G.R. No. L-20442 October 4, 1971

CIRIACO ROBLES, 

plaiti!-appellat, 

"#. $A%

&ING, 'e(e'at-appellee.

Appeal in 

forma pauperis 

taken by the plaintif rom the

order o the Court o First Instance o Manila dated

September 12, 192, dismissin! the complaint on the

!round o lack o "urisdiction#

 $he alle!ations o the complaint, %hich or purposes o

the motion to dismiss %ere deemed admitted, are as

ollo%s& that the plaintif %as employee by deendant in its

contractin! business' that on (uly , 191 at about 1&)*

p#m# %hile plaintif %as dismantlin! lumber brace in the

construction o a bode!a %hich deendant undertook to

construct, deendant ne!li!ently ailed to pro+ide saety

measures %ithin the construction premises, as a result o

%hich a piece o lumber ell and hit plaintif on the head,

causin! him physical in"uries' that immediately thereater

plaintif %as taken to a medical clinic, %here he remained

unconscious or se+eral hours' that deendant derayed

laintif-s medical e.penses' that since then plaintif %as

unable to %ork, thereby losin! his e.pected earnin! at an

a+era!e o )9#** a %eek or a total o 2,)/*#**, more or

less, up to the 0lin! o the complaint' that because o the

physical in"uries sustained by plaintif due to deendant-s

ne!li!ence, he sufered mental an!uish, an.iety, ri!ht

and pain' and that because he %as compelled to hire the

ser+ices o a la%yer he is entitled to reco+er attorney-s

ees#

In his ans%er deendant alle!ed by %ay o armati+e

deense that plaintif-s claim is one or disability resultin!

rom an accident arisin! out o and in the course o his

employment and thus pertains to the e.clusi+e "urisdiction

o the orkmen-s Compensation Commission# 3pon

deendant-s motion or a preliminary hearin! on the

alle!ed lack o "urisdiction o the lo%er court 4%hich %asactually a motion to dismiss5 and ater plaintif had 0led

its opposition thereto, the lo%er court dismissed plaintif-s

complaint# laintif mo+ed to reconsider alle!in! that his

claim %as or actual dama!es under Articles 1611 and

1612 o the 7e% Ci+il Code and not a claim or

compensation under Act 7o# )/28, other%ise kno%n as

the orkmen-s Compensation Act# $he motion to

reconsider %as denied' hence, this appeal#

 $he lone issue beore us or resolution is %hether or not

the trial court erred in dismissin! plaintif-s complaint on

the !round o lack o "urisdiction#

eore the enactment o :epublic Act 7o# 662 4amendin!Act 7o# )/285, %hich took efect on (une 2*, 19;2, claims

or compensation under the orkmen-s Compensation Act

%ere co!nie!islature e+idently deemed it best, in theinterest o e.pediency and uniormity, that all claims o

%orkmen a!ainst their employees or dama!es due to

accidents sufered in the course o employment shall be

in+esti!ated and ad"udicated by the orkmen-s

Compensation Commission sub"ect to the appeal in the

la% pro+ided#= $his %as reiterated in at least t%o

subse?uent cases, namely, 

%&a. &e Mallari vs. National

Development #ompany , @#:# 7o# >1691/, Bctober )1,

192' and 'u&en(ial vs. S. ). Mar(elo * #o.$ +n( #, @#:# 7o#

>2)99, February 26, 1961#

e are not unmindul o our rulin!s in the class o  )a(a,a

vs. #e-u Auto-us #o#, )2 SC:A //2, and 

%alen(ia vs.

Manila a("t #lu-$ +n(#, @#:# 7o# >26)/, (une )*, 199# In

the acaa case the plaintif had se+eral other money

claims such as or separation pay, sick lea+e pay, +acation

lea+e pay, o+ertime pay, moral dama!es and attorney-s

ees aside rom permanent disability compensation

bene0ts# In re+ersin! the trial court-s order o dismissal,

%e held that the plaintif had the choice o institutin! the

action in the re!ular courts under Article 1611 o the Ci+il

Code# e said&

### B course, the plaintif thus ore!oes the ar more

e.peditious procedures or reco+ery as pro+ided in the

orkmen-s Compensation Act, %hich practically oreclose

the employer rom contro+ertin! the claim upon ailure to

0le a report o disability %ith notice o contro+ersion

4section /;5 and the liberal presumptions in a+or o theemployees, inter alia, that the claim comes %ithin the

pro+ision o the Act 4section //5# ut there may be cases

%here, as in the case at bar, the plaintif is constrained to

in+oke the pro+ision o Article 1611 o the Ci+il Code and

0les his suit in the re!ular courts due to his prosecution o

+arious other money claims, such as separation pay,

accrued sick and +acation lea+e pay, and o+ertime pay

durin! his employment, %hich do not all under the

pur+ie% o the orkmen-s Compensation Act#

 $he +alidity o upholdin! the lo%er court-s "urisdiction to

hear and decide the +arious claims o plaintif in the sin!le

case 0led by him may readily be seen rom the tenuous

 "urisdictional ar!uments raised by deendant, %here it%ould ha+e the plaintif shuttle to our diferent courts and

a!encies to prosecute his claims, namely, orkmen-s

Compensation Commission and Social Security

Commission or disability compensation bene0ts and sick

lea+e pay, the Court o Industrial :elations or o+ertime

pay and the Municipal Court or separation pay# 

#ourts &o

not loo/ 0it" favor on split uris&i(tion an& pie(emeal

liti2ation# ### 4emphasis supplied5 #

It must be noted that in the abo+e case %e upheld the

 "urisdiction o the trial court in +ie% o the plaintif-s

+arious other claims %hich did not all under the pur+ie%

1

8/20/2019 Robles v Yap Wing

2/3

1 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]o the orkmen-s Compensation Act, and also to a+oid

multiplicity o suits# Bb+iously that case does not apply to

the one at bar#

Similarly, the Dalencia rulin! is not applicable here# In that

case the only issue %as =%hether claimant-s acceptance

rom the Social Security System o sickness and disability

bene0ts, %hich are a+ailable to him as a member o the

System, precludes urther collection rom the employer o

compensation allo%ed under the la% 4orkmen-sCompensation Act5 or the same sickness or in"ury#= e

there said&

### $o deny payment o social security bene0ts because the

death or in"ury or con0nement is compensable under the

orkmen-s Compensation Act %ould be to depri+e the

employees members o the System o the statutory

bene0ts bou!ht and paid or by them, since they

contribute their money to the !eneral common und out o 

%hich bene0ts are paid# In other %ords, the bene0ts

pro+ided or in the orkmen-s Compensation Act accrues

to the employees concerned due to the haa% but one ordama!es under Article 1611 o the 7e% Ci+il Code# $he

contention is %ithout merit# Article 1611 pro+ides or the

payment by employers o compensation or the death o

or in"uries to their employees as %ell as or illness or

disease arisin! out o and in the course o the

employment, %hich pro+ision is essentially the same as

that o Section 2 o the orkmen-s Compensation Act# $he

act that Article 1611 o the Ci+il Code appears to co+er

appellant-s claim is not decisi+e o the ?uestion& it should

still be prosecuted in accordance %ith the orkmen-s

Compensation Act by +irtue o Section ; thereo %hich

makes the ri!hts and remedies !ranted by said Act

e.clusi+e, as %ell as by +irtue o Article 219 o the Ci+il

Code itsel, %hich pro+ides& #

A:$# 219# $he rules under this $itle are %ithout pre"udice

to special pro+isions on dama!es ormulated else%here in

this Code# 

#ompensation for 0or/men an& ot"er

employees in (ase of &eat"$ inury or illness is re2ulate&

-y spe(ial la0s ### 4emphasis supplied5 #

Bur orkmen-s Compensation Act is patterned ater thestatutes o Ea%aii, 7e% ork and Minnesota 4>abor

Standards and elare >e!islation by Fernande< and

Guia

8/20/2019 Robles v Yap Wing

3/3

1 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]orkmen-s Compensation Act is not e.pressly in+oked is

to i!nore the act that the !rounds upon %hich

compensation may be claimed are practically identical in

both statutes and to i!nore like%ise the e.clusi+e

character o =the ri!hts and remedies !ranted by this Act=

as stated in Section thereo, as %ell as the pro+ision o

Article 219 o the Ci+il Code#

 $he su!!estion has been made that there is in this case a

claim or moral dama!es sufered by the plaintif as aresult o the ne!li!ence o the deendant and that such

dama!es do not come %ithin the pur+ie% o the

orkmen-s Compensation Act# It should be pointed out

0rst, that the ne!li!ence alle!ed in the complaint consists

o the deendant-s ailure =to pro+ide saety measures

%ithin the construction premises,= the nature o %hich

ne!li!ence is precisely co+ered by Section /A o the

same Act, %hich makes the employer liable to pay

additional compensation 4o ;*K5 to the claimant

employee or ailure =to install and maintain saety

appliances, or take other precautions or the pre+ention o 

accident or occupational disease#= Secondly, the alle!ed

ne!li!ence %as not a 

3uasi4&eli(t  

inasmuch as there %as a

pree.istin! contractual relation o employer and

employee bet%een the parties 4Art# 216, Ci+il Code5' and

in breaches o contract moral dama!es may be reco+ered

only %here the deendant acted raudulently or in bad

aith 4Art# 222*5, and neither raud nor bad aith is alle!ed

in the complaint here# In any e+ent, %hether or not such

an alle!ation, in relation to the breach o a contract oemployment by the employer, resultin! in in"ury to an

employee or laborer, %ould "ustiy a claim or moral

dama!es and place it %ithin the "urisdiction o ordinary

courts is a ?uestion %hich %e do not decide in this case,

not bein! the issue in+ol+ed#

In +ie% o all the ore!oin!, the order appealed rom is

armed, %ithout costs# Hi