G.R. No. L-43674, June 30, 1987
Ysmael Maritime Corporation, petitioner, vs. Hon. Celso Avelino, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XIII, Court of First Instance of Cebu and Spouses Felix C. Lim and Constancia Geveia, respondents.

FACTS

On December 22, 1971, Rolando G. Lim, a licensed second mate, perished when the vessel M/S Rajah, owned by petitioner Ysmael Maritime Corporation, sank. His parents, respondents Felix Lim and Consorcia Geveia, filed a damages suit against the petitioner in the Court of First Instance on January 28, 1972, alleging their son’s death was due to the corporation’s negligence. The petitioner, in its answer, raised affirmative defenses including that the respondents had already received compensation from the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) for the same incident.
After protracted procedural skirmishes, the case was set for pre-trial in 1975. The petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, arguing that the compensation remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (WCA) was exclusive. The respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. This prompted the petitioner to file the instant special civil action for certiorari, contending the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents, having claimed and received death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, are precluded from filing a separate action for damages under the Civil Code based on the alleged negligence of the employer.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the civil case. The Court applied the doctrine established in Floresca vs. Philex Mining Company (136 SCRA 141), which rejected the absolute exclusivity rule of the WCA as laid down in Robles vs. Yap Wing. The Floresca ruling adopted the “election of remedies” doctrine, holding that an employee or their heirs have a choice between availing themselves of the benefits under the WCA or suing for higher damages under the Civil Code based on the employer’s negligence.
However, this choice is not simultaneous. Once an election is made and the benefits are accepted, the party is barred from pursuing the alternate remedy. In this case, the respondents had not only opted to file a claim with the WCC but had also actually received the compensation payable under the Act. This constituted a clear election of the compensation remedy. Consequently, they were precluded from instituting a separate civil action for damages. The respondent Judge therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.