Severo v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The late Ricardo Severo, an employee of respondents Luningning Feliciano Go and Joaquin Go, was killed on February 16, 1972, while driving his employers' car. The incident occurred when unidentified armed men forcibly took the vehicle, and Severo was shot and killed while resisting them. The perpetrators have not been identified or apprehended. Severo was employed as a baker and later as a driver-mechanic from 1961 until his death. 2. Procedural History: On September 18, 1974, Ricardo Severo's widow and children filed a complaint for "Death Compensation and Damages" against his employers, seeking P74,500.00. The employers moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. This motion was denied. After filing an answer and raising affirmative defenses, the employers again moved to dismiss during pre-trial, reiterating the jurisdictional issue. The trial court, on April 6, 1976, granted this motion, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the claim fell under the Workmen's Compensation Act and should have been filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission. 3. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court as a special civil action for certiorari, treated as a petition for review by way of certiorari. The petitioners argued that their claim was not for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act but for damages under Articles 1711 and 21 of the Civil Code, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. They contended that the trial court erred in relying on the ruling in Robles vs. Yap Wing, which was no longer controlling due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions, specifically Ysmael Maritime Corporation vs. Hon. Celso Avelino and Floresca vs. Philex Mining Company, which established that employees or their heirs have a choice of remedies, either under the Workmen's Compensation Act or by suing for damages in regular courts based on employer liability under the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over a claim for death compensation and damages filed by the heirs of an employee who died in the course of employment, when the claim is based on Articles 1711 and 21 of the Civil Code, and whether the remedy provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act is exclusive, precluding claims for damages under the Civil Code.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The order dated April 6, 1976, of the respondent Court dismissing the petitioners' complaint is set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and the exclusivity of the Workmen's Compensation Act: The Supreme Court held that the ruling in Robles vs. Yap Wing, which stated that the remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act was exclusive, no longer controls. The Court, citing Floresca vs. Philex Mining Company and Ysmael Maritime Corporation vs. Hon. Celso Avelino, clarified that an employee or their heirs have a choice of cause of action. They can either pursue a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Workmen's Compensation Commission or file an ordinary action for damages before the regular courts based on the employer's negligence under the Civil Code. However, this right of choice is qualified; once an election has been made, the employee or their heirs are bound by that choice and cannot pursue both remedies simultaneously. In this case, the petitioners filed their complaint for "Death Compensation and Damages" before the respondent Court, opting to seek their remedy before the regular courts. Their demand for compensation was predicated on the employer's liability for the death of their employee, Ricardo Severo, as imposed by Article 1711 of the Civil Code. This claim, based on the Civil Code, falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, as established in Pacana vs. Cebu Autobus Company. Therefore, the CFI erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The ruling in Robles vs. Yap Wing, which held that the remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act was exclusive, no longer controls. The employee or his heirs have the choice of availing themselves of the benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act or of suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages from the employer by reason of negligence, provided that the employee or heirs are held to the particular remedy in which they have staked their fortunes.