Heirs of Marcelo Generoso vs. Universal Textile Mills, Inc.

An employer that has paid workmen's compensation to the heirs of an employee killed by a fellow employee is no longer subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the civil indemnity adjudged against the insolvent killer, because the rights and remedies under the Workmen's Compensation Law are exclusive and alternative, and the employer is subrogated by operation of law to the heirs' right of recovery against the offender.

Marcelo Generoso was an employee of Universal Textile Mills, Inc., working in the weaving department from November 1, 1956 until his death on May 22, 1965. He was killed by a fellow employee, Antonio Lebantino, while both were in the performance of their duties. Lebantino was convicted of homicide and sentenced to pay ₱6,000 as civil indemnity to Generoso's heirs, but the writ of execution against him was returned unsatisfied due to insolvency. The corporation had separately paid ₱5,279.36 to Generoso's heirs as workmen's compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The dispute centered on whether the employer's payment of compensation barred the heirs from additionally recovering the unpaid civil indemnity from the employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

Marcelo Generoso was employed in the weaving department of Universal Textile Mills, Inc. from November 1, 1956 until May 22, 1965. On that date, he was stabbed to death by a fellow employee, Antonio Lebantino, while Lebantino was performing his duties. Lebantino was thereafter convicted of homicide and sentenced to pay ₱6,000 as civil indemnity to Generoso's heirs. The writ of execution issued against Lebantino was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency, leaving the indemnity unpaid.

Separately, the corporation paid ₱5,279.36 to Generoso's heirs as workmen's compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The corporation refused to pay the civil indemnity adjudged against Lebantino, contending that its payment of workmen's compensation barred any further claim by the heirs against the employer.

Generoso's heirs, represented by his widow Norma D. Generoso, filed Civil Case No. 69214 in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the ₱6,000 civil indemnity from the corporation, invoking Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes subsidiary civil liability on employers for felonies committed by their employees in the discharge of their duties. The trial court rendered judgment on September 8, 1967, ordering the corporation to pay the ₱6,000 indemnity plus ₱1,000 as attorney's fees, relying on the doctrine that the employer's obligation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is wholly distinct from the killer's civil liability in the criminal case. The corporation appealed.

• Subsidiary Civil Liability vs. Workmen's Compensation: Whether an employer who has already paid workmen's compensation to the heirs of an employee killed by a fellow employee remains subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the civil indemnity adjudged against the insolvent killer.
• Election of Remedies: Whether the heirs' acceptance of workmen's compensation constitutes an election of remedy that precludes them from claiming the civil indemnity from the employer under the Revised Penal Code.
• Subrogation: Whether the employer, having paid workmen's compensation, is subrogated to the heirs' right to recover the civil indemnity from the convicted killer.

• Subsidiary Civil Liability vs. Workmen's Compensation: No. The employer's payment of workmen's compensation extinguished its subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the instant case being an exception to that article's rule.
• Election of Remedies: Yes. The heirs' remedies were alternative under Sections 5 and 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Law; having opted for workmen's compensation, they are estopped from claiming other remedies for the same injury.
• Subrogation: Yes. The employer, having paid workmen's compensation, is subrogated ipso jure to the right of the heirs to recover the civil indemnity from the convicted killer, and is entitled to recover from the latter what it paid.

• Subsidiary Civil Liability vs. Workmen's Compensation: Sections 5 and 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Law and Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code are statutes in pari materia and must be construed together. Section 5 provides that the rights and remedies granted by the Act exclude all other rights and remedies accruing to the employee or his dependents against the employer under the Civil Code and other laws by reason of the injury. The Revised Penal Code is included in the "other laws" mentioned in Section 5. Where the employer is being required to pay twice for the same injury, there is all the more reason not to countenance double indemnity, consistent with the policy against double recovery reflected in Article 2177 of the Civil Code. The trial court erred in relying on Taller Viuda de Nava vs. Ynchausti Steamship Co., because that case involved the reverse situation: the slayer was first required to pay civil indemnity, and thereafter the heirs sought workmen's compensation from the employer — a scenario that did not make the employer liable for double indemnity. In the instant case, the employer had already paid compensation and was then being asked to pay the civil indemnity as well.

• Election of Remedies: Section 6 grants the injured employee (or his heirs, since "injury" includes death under Section 39[c]) the option either to claim workmen's compensation from the employer or to sue the responsible third person for damages. Having elected to claim and accept workmen's compensation, the heirs are bound by that election and are estopped from resorting to other remedies. The doctrine of election of remedies — the adoption of one of two or more coexisting remedies with the effect of precluding resort to the others — applies. Esguerra vs. Muñoz-Palma and Manalo vs. Foster Wheeler Corp. support this principle: once a claim for compensation is filed and allowed, no further claim for the same injury may be pursued under the Civil Code or other laws.

• Subrogation: Section 6 provides that where compensation is claimed and paid, the employer succeeds to the injured employee's right of recovering from the responsible third person what it paid, subject to the proviso that any excess recovery be delivered to the employee or other person entitled thereto. The employer is thus subrogated ipso jure to the heirs' right to claim civil liability from the author of the homicide. Instead of being liable for the indemnity, the employer is entitled to recover it from the convicted killer.

• Election of Remedies under the Workmen's Compensation Law — The rights and remedies granted by the Workmen's Compensation Law to an employee by reason of a personal injury are exclusive and alternative. Under Section 5, payment of workmen's compensation precludes the employee, his personal representatives, dependents, or nearest of kin from resorting to all other rights and remedies against the employer under the Civil Code and other laws. Under Section 6, the injured employee has the option to claim compensation from the employer or sue the responsible third person for damages; he cannot pursue both. Having elected one remedy, he is estopped from claiming the others. The term "injury" includes death, so the deceased employee's heirs may exercise the same option.

• Employer's Subrogation — Where the employee (or his heirs) elects to claim and the employer pays workmen's compensation, the employer is subrogated by operation of law to the employee's right of recovery against the third person responsible for the injury. The employer may recover from that third person what it paid, subject to the proviso that any excess recovery be delivered to the employee or other person entitled thereto after deduction of the employer's expenses and costs.

• Prohibition Against Double Recovery — The law intends that the employee is not entitled to a double recovery based on the same personal injury, from both the third party and the employer. This policy is reflected in Article 2177 of the Civil Code, which prohibits recovery of damages twice for the same act or omission. Where the employer itself is being required to pay twice for the same injury, the prohibition applies with even greater force.

• "We hold that in view of the textile corporation's payment of workmen's compensation, its obligation to pay, in a subsidiary capacity (or in default of the killer), the civil indemnity adjudged against him in the criminal case, was extinguished. The instant case is an exception to the rule in article 103 of the Revised Penal Code." — This is the ratio decidendi, directly stating the holding that payment of workmen's compensation extinguishes the employer's subsidiary civil liability under Article 103.

• "Having opted for workmen's compensation, they are bound by that election of remedy and are estopped to claim other remedies." — This articulates the election-of-remedies doctrine as applied to the heirs' choice between workmen's compensation and civil indemnity under the Revised Penal Code.

• "Instead of being liable for the indemnity, the employer, as subrogee, is entitled to recover it from the convicted killer of the employee." — This defines the consequence of subrogation: the employer's role shifts from debtor to creditor, entitled to recover from the offender.

• Taller Viuda de Nava vs. Ynchausti Steamship Co., 57 Phil. 751 — Distinguished. In that case, the slayer was first required to pay civil indemnity, and thereafter the heirs sought workmen's compensation from the employer — the reverse of the instant situation. The Court held the employer's compensation obligation distinct from the killer's civil liability, but that ruling did not involve double liability on the employer.

• Esguerra vs. Muñoz-Palma, 104 Phil. 582 — Followed. Held that an employee who had already elected to claim workmen's compensation could not thereafter file a separate action for damages for the same injury under the Civil Code or other laws, and that the employer is subrogated to the worker's rights against the tortfeasor.

• Manalo vs. Foster Wheeler Corp. and Capital Ins. and Surety Co., Inc., 98 Phil. 855 — Followed. Cited for the principle that election of one remedy bars resort to others.

• Vda. de Clemente vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, L-43219, January 15, 1979, 88 SCRA 68 — Distinguished. There, payment of damages to the heirs of a policeman who died in a vehicular accident, as an amicable settlement of the criminal action, did not preclude the heirs from claiming workmen's compensation from the employer, because that claim did not make the employer liable for double indemnity.

• Alba vs. Bulaong, 101 Phil. 434 — Cited for the principle that the law intends no double recovery based on the same personal injury from both the third party and the employer.

• Section 5, Workmen's Compensation Law (Act No. 3428 as amended) — Provides that the rights and remedies granted by the Act exclude all other rights and remedies against the employer under the Civil Code and other laws by reason of the personal injury. Applied to bar the heirs' claim for civil indemnity under the Revised Penal Code after they had already received workmen's compensation.

• Section 6, Workmen's Compensation Law — Grants the injured employee the option to claim compensation from the employer or sue the responsible third person for damages; provides for the employer's subrogation to the employee's right of recovery upon payment of compensation. Applied to establish the alternative nature of the remedies and the employer's subrogation to the heirs' right against the killer.

• Article 103, Revised Penal Code — Imposes subsidiary civil liability on employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. Held inapplicable in this case because the employer's payment of workmen's compensation extinguished its subsidiary liability.

• Article 2177, Civil Code — Provides that while responsibility for fault or negligence under Article 2176 is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code, the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission. Cited to reinforce the policy against double recovery.

Barredo (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, and Abad Santos, JJ. concurred.