Photo from Pexels | Mikael Blomkvist
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
While Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code on Employees Compensation and State Insurance Fund has already superseded Article 1711 of the Civil Code, heirs of injured or deceased workers still have a choice of remedy between filing a compensation claim under the Labor Code or proceeding against the employer in an action for damages under the Civil Code.
In the case of Oceanmarine Resources vs. Nedic, the Supreme Court declared that Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code of the Philippines impliedly repealed Article 1711 of the Civil Code. In the same case, the Court abandoned its 2007 ruling in Candano Shipping Lines, inc. v. Sugata-on which had allowed the awarding of indemnity for loss of future income based on Article 1711 of the Civil Code. The abandonment of the Candano ruling, however, shall be applied prospectively.
The Court hence set the following guidelines on the application of Candano and the transition to its abandonment, as follows:
- For actions filed prior to August 6, 2007, which is the finality of Candano, Article 1711 of the Civil Code shall be considered to have been impliedly repealed by the Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code. Thus, Article 1711 of the Civil Code cannot sustain any action for, or award of, indemnity. Candano was not yet a binding precedent at the time these actions were filed. In Candano’s absence, there is no legal basis to give effect to a repealed provision of the Civil Code.
- For actions filed during the applicability of Candano from its finality on August 6, 2007 until the finality of this Decision, Article 1711 of the Civil Code shall be given effect based on the Candano ruling.
- For actions filed after the finality of this Decision, Article 1711 of the Civil Code shall not be given any effect since Article 1711 has been repealed by the Labor Code. Thus, Article 1711 of the Civil Code can no longer be used against an employer to claim indemnity for work-related injury or death.
This case stemmed from the 2012 complaint filed by respondent Nedic who sought from petitioner Oceanmarine claims representing the “Lost Future Income” of Ellao, Nedic’s common-law partner and father of her minor son.
Ellao, who was working as a company driver for Oceanmarine, was shot dead by two unidentified motorcycle-riding assailants after he withdrew money from Oceanmarine’s banks.
Following Ellao’s death, Nedic’s counsel wrote a letter to Oceanmarine demanding damages by way of loss of future income. But Oceanmarine denied the claim.
This prompted Nedic to file before RTC Paranaque the present claim under Art. 1711 of the Civil Code, which expressly holds owners of enterprises and other employers liable to pay compensation for the death of their employees if the death rose out of and in the course of employment even if it was accidental or entirely due to fortuitous cause.
The RTC dismissed Nedic’s complaint for failure to establish the casual connection between Oceanmarine’s negligence and Ellao’s death. The CA reversed the RTC’s ruling and awarded Nedic actual damages for loss of earning capacity. The CA held that the employer’s obligation for indemnity automatically so long as the employee died or was injured in the course of employment.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification of the CA. It held that while Nedic erred in relying on Art. 1711 of the Civil Code, which is now considered impliedly repealed by Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, her action under Art. 1711 was considered meritorious and entitled to relief pursuant to Candano, which was the prevailing doctrine at the time the action was filed and prior to the abandonment of such doctrine.
The Court noted that in the absence of an express repeal of the provisions of the Civil Code on employees’ compensation and claims, confusion arose as to the effect of acceptance of benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act on the right to sue for additional amounts under Civil Code.
Comparing Art. 1711 of the Civil Code and Labor Code, however, the Court found that the latter law impliedly repealed the former since the Labor Code, as amended by PD 626, covers the whole subject matter of compensation for work-related injury or death of an employee, providing the system for which an injured or deceased worker is compensated. Hence, the said Labor Code provisions were clearly intended as the controlling law for payment of compensation for all work-related injury or death, in effect substituting Art. 1711 of the Civil Code.
Moreover, the Court found that Art. 1711 of the Civil Code and Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code are irreconcilably inconsistent. The former law makes the employer directly liable for the payment of compensation for work-related injuries or death, which occurs through no fault of the employer, while the latter law has effectively shifted the liability for said injury or death to the State Insurance Fund.
While the damages recoverable under the Civil Code are much more extensive than the compensation set by the Labor Code, the amounts obtained under the Labor Code are balanced by the relief of burden to prove a causal connection between the employer’s negligence of the employer and the injury or death of the worker should be established.
Related Articles:
- Safety and Accident Prevention in the Workplace
- What is the rule on compensability of sickness, injury, disability or death?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
