Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44330)
Facts:
Julita T. Vda. de Severo, Antoniete Severo, Bernadit Severo, Ricardo Severo, Jr. and Marisol Severo v. Luningning Feliciano Go and Joaquin Co., and the Honorable Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch V, G.R. No. L-44330, January 29, 1988, Supreme Court En Banc, Bidin, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners are the widow and minor children of the late Ricardo Severo, who had been employed by private respondents Luningning Feliciano Go and Joaquin Go first as a baker and later as a driver-mechanic from 1961 until February 16, 1972. On that date, while driving respondents' car, Severo was allegedly carnapped by unidentified armed men; he attempted to resist and was shot and killed. The perpetrators were not identified or apprehended.
On September 18, 1974, petitioners filed a complaint for "Death Compensation and Damages" in the Court of First Instance of Samar (Civil Case No. 522-CC), alleging that Severo's death arose out of and in the course of his employment and claiming P74,500 in total (including P50,000 for death compensation, P20,000 moral damages, and litigation expenses). Private respondents moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds on November 18, 1974; the trial court denied that motion in an order dated January 9, 1975, and also denied reconsideration. Respondents answered on May 3, 1975, again asserting lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action.
During pretrial proceedings, respondents renewed their motion to dismiss (filed January 16, 1976). Petitioners opposed (reply dated February 5, 1976) insisting that their suit was grounded on Articles 1711 and 21 of the Civil Code for damages, not under the Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA). The trial court thereafter issued an order on April 6, 1976 dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the claim fell within the WCA and that the proper forum was the Workmen's Compensation Commission, relying principally on Robles v. Yap Wing, L-20442 (Oct. 4, 1971).
The petitioners brought the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a special civil action f...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of jurisdiction and declaring the Workmen's Compensation Commission as the proper forum?
- Are petitioners barred by Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act from pursuing an ordinary action for damages under the Civil Code (Article 1711), or do the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)