[ GR No.

L-30642, Apr 30, 1985 ]

FLORESCA v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

Facts:

 The miners employed by Philex Mining Corporation died in performance of their duties.
 The heirs of the deceased employees, (Perfecto Floresca et al), moved to claim their
benefits pursuant to the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission.
 They also filed a separate civil case against Philex for damages in negligence and
violation of government rules and regulations.
 Philex sought the dismissal of the civil case as it insisted that Floresca et al have
already claimed benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Issue: Does CFI (RTC) have jurisdiction over the complaint?

Held:

Pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code, it argues that the application or interpretation
placed by the Court upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said
law since the Court’s application or interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous
legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect.

Yet, the Court argues that the Court can legislate, pursuant to Article 9 of the New
Civil Code. However, even the legislator himself recognizes that in certain instances, the
court “do and must legislate” to fill in the gaps in the law; because the mind of the
legislator, like all human beings, is finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible cases to
which the law may apply.

(( HOWEVER, the Supreme Court ruled that Floresca et al are excused from this
deficiency due to ignorance of the fact. Had they been aware of such then they may have
not availed of such a remedy. But, if in case they’ll win in the lower court whatever award
may be granted, the amount given to them under the WCA should be deducted. The SC
emphasized that if they would go strictly by the book in this case then the purpose of the
law may be defeated. Idolatrous reverence for the letter of the law sacrifices the human
being. The spirit of the law insures man’s survival and ennobles him))