GR 28586; (January, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28586. January 22, 1980.
HEIRS OF MARCELO GENEROSO, represented by the widow, NORMA D. GENEROSO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. UNIVERSAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Marcelo Generoso, an employee of Universal Textile Mills, Inc., was stabbed and killed by a fellow employee, Antonio Lebantino, while both were performing their duties. Lebantino was convicted of homicide and ordered to pay an indemnity of P6,000 to Generoso’s heirs. A writ of execution against Lebantino was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Meanwhile, the employer corporation paid the heirs the sum of P5,279.36 as death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The heirs of Generoso then sought to enforce the employer’s subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the unpaid indemnity, given the killer’s insolvency. The corporation refused, contending that its payment of workmen’s compensation was a bar to any further claim and that it was subrogated to the heirs’ right to recover from Lebantino. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the heirs, ordering the corporation to pay the indemnity plus attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether an employer, having already paid workmen’s compensation benefits to the heirs of a deceased employee killed by a co-employee, can still be held subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the civil indemnity the convicted killer failed to pay.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the claim. The Court held that the employer’s payment of workmen’s compensation benefits precludes its subsidiary liability for the civil indemnity under the Revised Penal Code. Sections 5 and 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code are statutes in pari materia and must be construed together.
The legal logic is grounded on the principle against double recovery and the doctrine of election of remedies. Under Section 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, an injured employee or his heirs have the option to either claim compensation from the employer or sue the third-party wrongdoer for damages. If compensation is claimed and paid, the employer is subrogated to the right of the employee or heirs to recover from the third party. Consequently, the heirs, by accepting the workmen’s compensation award, are barred from subsequently claiming the same civil indemnity from the employer in a subsidiary capacity. To rule otherwise would subject the employer to double liability for the same incident. The employer, having paid compensation, steps into the shoes of the heirs as the proper party to seek recovery of the indemnity from the insolvent convicted employee.