D.M. Consunji vs.

CA and Juego
TITLE: D.M. Consunji Inc. v Court of Appeals and Maria J. Juego
CITATION: ! No. "#$%$#& April '(& '((" ) #*$ +C!A ',-
FACTS:
Around 1:30PM of November 2, 1990, Jose Juergo, a construction worker of !M! "onsun#i $nc!
fe%% 1& f%oors from t'e (enaissance )ower, Pasig "it*! +e was immediate%* rus'ed to (i,a%
Medica% "enter in Pasig "it*! )'e attending -'*sician, r! .rro% de /,o, -ronounce Jose dead on
arriva% 01A2 at around 2:13PM!
Jose Juergo, toget'er wit' Jessie Ja%uag and e%so esta#o, -erforming t'eir work as car-enter at
t'e e%evator core of t'e 1&
t'
f%oor of )ower , (enaissance )ower 4ui%ding were on board a
-%atform! Jose was crus'ed to deat' w'en t'e -%atform fe%% due to remova% or %ooseness of t'e
-in, w'ic' was mere%* inserted to t'e connecting -oints of t'e c'ain b%ock and -%atform but
wit'out a safet* %ock! 5ucki%*, Jessie and e%so #um-ed out of safet*!
P13 (oge%io 6i%%anueva of t'e .astern Po%ice istrict investigated t'e traged* and fi%ed re-ort
dated Nov! 23, 1990! Maria Juergo, Jose7s widow fi%ed a com-%aint on Ma* 9, 1991 for damages
in t'e ()" and was rendered a favorab%e decision to receive su--ort from M "onsun#i
amounting to P8&&,000!
M "onsun#i seeks reversa% of t'e "A decision!
ISSUE: 9'et'er Maria Juergo can sti%% c%aim damages wit' !M! "onsun#i a-art from t'e deat'
benefits s'e c%aimed in t'e :tate $nsurance ;und!
HELD:
)'e res-ondent is not -rec%uded from recovering damages under t'e civi% code! Maria Juergo
was unaware of -etitioner7s neg%igence w'en s'e fi%ed 'er c%aim for deat' benefits from t'e :tate
$nsurance ;und! :'e fi%ed t'e civi% com-%aint for damages after s'e received a co-* of t'e -o%ice
investigation re-ort and t'e Prosecutor7s Memorandum dismissing t'e crimina% com-%aint
against -etitioner7s -ersonne%!
:u-reme "ourt remanded to t'e ()" of Pasig "it* to determine w'et'er t'e award decreed in its
decision is more t'an t'at of t'e .m-%o*ees "om-ensation "ommission 0ECC)! :'ou%d t'e
award decreed b* t'e tria% court be greater t'an t'at awarded b* t'e ."", -a*ments a%read*
made to -rivate res-ondent -ursuant to t'e 5abor "ode s'a%% be deducted t'erefrom!
Consunji vs. Court of Appeals
FACTS:
At around 1:30 p.m., November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of D. M. Consunji, Inc.,
fell 14 foors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his death. On May 9, 1991, Jose Juegos
widow, Maria, fled in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig a complaint for damages against the
deceaseds employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer raised, among other defenses, the widows
prior availment of the benefts from the State Insurance Fund. After trial, the RTC rendered a
decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego.
On appeal by D. M. Consunji, the Court of Appeals (CA) afrmed the decision of the RTC in toto.
D. M. Consunji then sought the reversal of the CA decision.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petitioner is held liable under the grounds of negligence.
2. Whether or not the injured employee or his heirs in case of death have a right of selection or
choice of action between availing themselves of the workers right under the Workmens
Compensation Act and suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages (actual,
moral and exemplary) from the employers by virtue of the negligence or fault of the employers or
whether they may avail themselves cumulatively of both actions,
RULING:
1. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing or transaction speaks for itself) is peculiar to the
law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct
proof and furnishes a substitute for specifc proof of negligence. It has the following requisites: (1) the
accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the
instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person
charged with negligence; and (3)the injury sufered must not have been due to any voluntary action
or contribution on the part of the person injured. All the requisites for the application of the rule of res
ipsa loquitur are present in the case at bar, thus a reasonable presumption or inference of appellants
negligence arises. Petitioner does not cite any other evidence to rebut the inference or presumption
of negligence arising from the application of res ipsa loquitur, or to establish any defense relating to
the incident.
2. The claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment could be
fled only under the Workmens Compensation Law, to the exclusion of all further claims under other
laws. In the course of availing the remedies provided under the Workmens Compensation law, the
claimants are deemed to have waived theirknown right of the remedies provided by other laws. The
Court of Appeals, however, held that the case at bar came under exception because private
respondent was unaware of petitioners negligence when she fled her claim for death benefts from
the State Insurance Fund. Had the claimant been aware, she wouldve opted to avail of a better
remedy than that of which she already had.
Nerwin v PN1", <!(! No! 18=03=, A-ri% 11, 2012;acts:1! $n 1999, t'e Nationa% .%ectrification Administration 0

N.A

2 -ub%is'ed an invitation to -re>?ua%if* and to bid for a contract, ot'erwise known as $P4 No! @0, for t'e su--%* and
de%iver* of about siAt* t'ousand 080,0002 -ieces of wood-o%es andtwent* t'ousand 020,0002 -ieces of crossarms
needed in t'e countr*

s (ura% .%ectrification Pro#ect!2! )'ereafter, t'e ?ua%ified bidders submitted t'eir financia% bids w'ere -rivate
res-ondent BNerwinC emerged as t'e %owest bidder for a%% sc'edu%esDcom-onentsof t'e contract! N.A t'en conducted
a -re>award ins-ection of -rivate res-ondent

s BNerwin

sC manufacturing -%ants and faci%ities, inc%uding its identified su--%ier in Ma%a*sia, to determine its ca-abi%it* to
su--%* and de%iver N.A

s re?uirements!3! E-on %earning of t'e issuance of (e?uisition No! ;<J 3090&(1 for t'e 1>$5A9 Pro#ect, Nerwin
fi%ed a civi% action in t'e ()" in Mani%a, docketed as "ivi% "aseNo! 03108921 entit%ed Nerwin $ndustries
"or-oration v! PN1">.nerg* eve%o-ment "or-oration and .ster (! <uer,on, as "'airman, 4ids and Awards
"ommittee, a%%eging t'at (e?uisition No! ;<J 3090&(1 was an attem-t to sub#ect a -ortion of t'e itemscovered b*
$P4 No! @0 to anot'er biddingF and -ra*ing t'at a )(1 issue to en#oinres-ondents

-ro-osed bidding for t'e wooden -o%es!&! (es-ondents soug't t'e dismissa% of "ivi% "ase No! 03108921, stating t'at
t'e com-%aint averred no cause of action, vio%ated t'e ru%e t'at government infrastructure -ro#ects were not to be
sub#ected to )(1s, contravened t'e mandator* -ro'ibition against non>forum s'o--ing, and t'e cor-orate -resident
'ad no aut'orit*to sign and fi%e t'e com-%aint!3! )'ence, res-ondents commenced in t'e "ourt of A--ea%s 0"A2 a
s-ecia% civi% action for certiorari 0"A><( :P No! @31&&2, a%%eging t'at t'e ()" 'ad t'ereb* committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to %ack or eAcess of #urisdiction in 'o%ding t'at Nerwin 'ad been entit%ed to t'e issuance of
t'e writ of -re%iminar* in#unction des-ite t'e eA-ress -ro'ibition from t'e %aw and from t'e :u-reme "ourtFin
issuing t'e )(1 in b%atant vio%ation of t'e (u%es of "ourt and estab%is'ed #uris-rudenceF in dec%aring res-ondents in
defau%tF and in dis?ua%if*ing res-ondents

counse% from re-resenting t'em!$ssuesDs1! 9'et'er or not t'e "A erred in dismissing t'e case on t'e basis of (e-!
Act @9=3 -ro'ibiting t'e issuance of tem-orar* restraining orders and -re%iminar* in#unctions, eAce-t if issued b*
t'e :u-reme "ourt, on government -ro#ects!(u%ing1! )'e -etition fai%s! $n its decision of 1ctober 22, 200&, t'e "A
eA-%ained w'* it annu%%ed and set aside t'e assai%ed orders of t'e ()" issued on Ju%* 20, 2003 and ecember 29,
2003,and w'* it a%toget'er dismissed "ivi% "ase No! 03108921, as fo%%ows: a! $t is be*ond dis-ute t'at t'e cruA of
t'e instant case is t'e -ro-riet* of res-ondJudge

s issuance of a -re%iminar* in#unction, or t'e ear%ier )(1, for t'at matter! b! (es-ondent Judge grave%* abused 'is
discretion in entertaining an a--%ication forD-re%iminar* in#unction, and worse, in issuing a -re%iminar* in#unction
t'roug't'e assai%ed order en#oining -etitioners

soug't bidding for its 1>$5A9 Pro#ect! )'e same is a -a%-ab%e vio%ation of (A @9=3 w'ic' was a--roved on
November =, 2000, t'us, a%read* eAisting at t'e time res-ondent Judge issued t'e assai%ed 1rders dated Ju%* 20 and
ecember 29, 2003!2! )'e said -roscri-tion is not entire%* new! (A @9=3 mere%* su-ersedes P 1@1@
w'icunderscored t'e -ro'ibition to courts from issuing restraining orders or -re%iminar* in#unctions in cases
invo%ving infrastructure or Nationa% (esources eve%o-ment -ro#ects of, and -ub%ic uti%ities o-erated b*, t'e
government! )'is %aw was, in fact, ear%ier u-'e%d to 'ave suc' a mandator* nature b* t'e :u-reme "ourt
Nerwin v. N!C" #.$. No. %&'()'" A*ri+ %%" ,(%,
;A"):: $n 1999, Nationa% .%ectrification Administration 0N.A2 -ub%is'ed an invitation to -re>
?ua%if* and to bid for a contract known as $P4 No! @0 for t'e su--%* and de%iver* of about
80,000 -ieces of wood -o%es and 20,000 of cross>arms! Nerwin was one of t'e bidders )'e
contract was awarded to 'im being t'e %owest bidder! +owever, N.A7s board of directors -assed
a reso%ution reducing b* 30G t'e materia% re?uirements for $P4 @0 to w'ic' Nerwin -rotested! A
%osing bidder, )ri :tate and Pacific :*nerg* fi%ed a com-%aint a%%eging t'e documents Nerwin
submitted during t'e -re>?ua%ification bid were fa%sified! ;inding a wa* to nu%%if* t'e bid, N.A
soug't t'e o-inion of <ov7t "or-orate "ounse% w'o u-'e%d t'e e%igibi%it* of Nerwin! N.A
a%%eged%* 'e%d negotiations wit' ot'er bidders for $P4 @0 contract! As a resu%t, Nerwin fi%ed a
com-%aint wit' -ra*er of in#unction w'ic' was grabted b* ()" Mani%a! PN1" H .nerg* ev7t
"or- issued an invitation to -re>?ua%if* and bid for 1>$5A9 -ro#ect! Nerwin fi%ed a civi% action
in ()" a%%eging t'at it was an attem-t to sub#ect -ortions of $P4 @0 to anot'er bidding! +e
-ra*ed for )(1 to en#oin res-ondents to t'e -ro-osed bidding! (es-ondents averred t'at t'is is
in vio%ation of a ru%e t'at government infrastructure are not sub#ect to )(1s! ()" granted )(1
nevert'e%ess! "A ru%ed in favor of res-ondents! +ence, t'is -etition!
$::E.: 9DN "A erred in dismissing t'e case -ursuant to (A @9=3 w'ic' -ro'ibits issuance of
)(1 eAce-t :" to gov7t -ro#ects
+.5: ecision of "A affirmed! :ec 3 of (A @9=3 c%ear%* -ro'ibits issuance of )(1,
-re%iminar* in#unctions, and -re%iminar* mandator* in#unctions against gov7t!