G.R. No. L-11983; September 24, 1958
ALFONSO ESGUERRA, petitioner, vs. HON. CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, FLORA GUILATCO, DR. DOMINADOR GESMUNDO and FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfonso Esguerra, an employee of Franklin Baker Company, felt pain while working on April 13, 1956. He consulted the company physician, Dr. Dominador Gesmundo, who prescribed an injection. Nurse Flora Guilatco administered the injection, after which Esguerra’s arm swelled, leading to an eight-month hospitalization. On June 21, 1956, Esguerra filed a claim for permanent partial disability with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (Case No. 44549). While that claim was pending, he also filed a civil action in the Court of First Instance to recover compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages from Dr. Gesmundo and Nurse Guilatco, and to hold Franklin Baker Company subsidiarily liable. The trial court, upon motion, dismissed the civil case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Esguerra’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the civil action for damages on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, given that the petitioner had a pending claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

RULING

Yes, the trial court correctly dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal order.
1. Election of Remedies under the Workmen’s Compensation Act: Section 6 of Act No. 3812 , as amended by Republic Act No. 772 , governs an injured employee’s remedy against a third-party tortfeasor. It provides the employee an option: either to claim compensation from the employer under the Act or to sue the third party for damages under ordinary civil law. However, these remedies cannot be pursued simultaneously under the rules of election of remedies. By filing and pursuing his claim for compensation with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Esguerra made his election. He could not concurrently maintain an ordinary civil action for damages against the alleged tortfeasors (the doctor and nurse) while his compensation claim was pending.
2. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission: The injury sustained by Esguerra in the course of employment is a compensable injury under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Republic Act No. 772 vested exclusive jurisdiction over all compensation claims, effective June 20, 1952, in the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court cited its precedent in Manalo vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., which held that the legislature intended all claims of workers against employers for work-related injuries to be investigated and adjudicated exclusively by the Commission to ensure expediency and uniformity.
3. Subrogation of Employer: Under Section 6, if compensation is claimed, awarded, and paid by the employer, the employer is subrogated to the employee’s right of recovery against the third-party tortfeasor. The employee can no longer sue the tortfeasor directly. Any excess recovered by the employer over the compensation paid, after deducting expenses, is to be delivered to the employee.
4. Nature of Compensation: The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that “compensation is not damages,” stating this was a mere play on words. Compensation under the Act is an indemnity for damages suffered due to a work-related injury, computed based on wages but distinct from wages themselves.
5. Procedural Ground: The Court also noted that certiorari was an improper remedy. The dismissal order was final in nature, not interlocutory. The correct remedy was an ordinary appeal, which the petitioner did not avail.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition for certiorari was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was affirmed. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.