Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IAC
G.R. No. 70443
September 15, 1986
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the heirs of the deceased have
a right of selection 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 that negligence
or fault of the employers or whether they may
avail themselves cumulatively of both actions.
RULING:
The court held that although the other
petitioners had received the benefits under the
Workmens Compensation Act, such may not
preclude them from bringing an action before
the regular courtbecause they became
cognizant of the fact that Philex has been
remiss in its contractual obligations with the
deceased miners only after receiving
compensation under the Act. Had petitioners
been aware of said violation of government
rules and regulations by Philex, and of
itsnegligence, they would not have sought
redress under the Workmens Compensation
Commission which awarded a lesser amount
for compensation. The choice of the first
remedy was based on ignorance or a mistake
of fact, which nullifies the choice as it was not
an intelligent choice. The case should
therefore be remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings. However, should the
petitioners be successful in their bid before the
lower court, the payments made under
the Workmens Compensation Act should be
deducted from the damages that may be
decreed in their favor.
Government of the Philippine Islands vs
HSBC (1938)
G.R. No. 44257 | 1938-11-22
Subject: One-Subject, One-Bill Rule; The
requirement that the subject of an act shall be
expressed in its title should receive a
reasonable and not a technical construction;
The subject of Act No. 4007 is embraced in the
title; The banking business, being affected with
public interest, is a legitimate subject of police
power by the state
Facts:
The
present
action
involves
the
constitutionality of section 11 of Act No. 4007
entitled "An
Act
to
Reorganize
the
Departments, Bureaus and Offices of the
Insular
Government,
and
for
purposes which reads as follows:
other
LegalStanding
1. While the general rule is that "a writ of
mandamus would be granted to a private
individual only in those cases where he has
some private or particular interest to be
subserved, or some particular right to be
protected, independent of that which he holds
with the public at large," and "it is for the public
officers exclusively to apply for the writ when
public rights are to be subserved [Mithchell vs.
Boardmen],"
nevertheless,
"when
the question is one of public rightand the
object of the mandamus is to procure
the enforcement of a public duty, thepeople
are regarded as the real party in
interest and the relator at whose instigation
the proceedings are instituted need not show
that he has any legal or special interest in the
result, it being sufficient to show that he is a
citizen and as such interested in the execution
of
the
laws.
Publication
Requirement
6.
The publication
of
all presidential
issuances "of a public nature" or "of
general applicability" is mandated by law.
Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for
fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation
or otherwise impose a burden on the people,
such as tax and revenue measures, fall within
this category. Other presidential issuances
which applyonly to particular persons or
class of persons such as administrative
and executive orders need not be
published on the assumption that they have
been
circularized
to
all
concerned.
Facts:
8. The very first clause of Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act 638 reads: "There shall be
published in the Official Gazette . . ." The word
"shall" used therein imposes upon respondent
officials an imperative duty. That duty must be
enforced if the Constitutional right of the
people to be informed on matters of public
concern is to be given substance and reality.
9. Presidential
issuances
of
general
application,
which
have
not
been
published, shall have no force and effect.
In an earlier decision, the Court affirmed the
necessity for the publication of presidential
issuances which are of general application.
Operative
Fact
Held:
Publication requirement
4.5.
All presidential
decrees must
be
published, including even,say, those naming a
public place after a favored individual or
exempting him from certain prohibitions or
requirements.
6.
Publication must be in full or it is no
publication at all since its purpose is to inform
the public of the contents of the laws.