DOCTRINE:

The application of Article 3 of the Civil Code is limited to mandatory

and prohibitory laws. This may be deduced from the language of the
provision, which, notwithstanding a person’s ignorance, does not
excuse his or her compliance with the laws. A choice of remedies is
neither mandatory nor prohibitory.

D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA JUEGO

G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001
KAPUNAN, J.:

FACTS:
Jose Juego, a construction worker of DMCI fell 14 floors from the
Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his death. Investigation reveals that
he crushed to death when the platform he was then and board fell due
to the getting loose of the pin which was merely inserted to the
connecting points of the chain block without a safety lock. Jose’s
widow, Maria, filed in the RTC of Pasig a complaint for damages
against DMCI which was granted. DMCI appealed but CA affirmed the
decision in toto. Hence, this petition.
Among the Petitioner’s contentions are:
1. Maria Juego had previously availed of the death benefits
provided under the Labor Code (State Insurance Fund) and is
therefore precluded from claiming from DMCI damages under
the Civil Code.
CA held that because Juego was unaware of petitioner’s negligence
when she filed for claim for death benefits, 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. Maria Juego was not only
ignorant of the facts, but of her rights as well.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Maria Juego is precluded from claiming civil damages
from DMCI.
HELD:
No. There is no proof that private respondent knew that her husband
died in the elevator crash when she accomplished her application for
the benefits from the ECC. There is also no showing that she knew of
the remedies available to her when the claim before the ECC was filed.
She was not aware of her rights. Petitioner’s argument that under
Article 3 of the Civil Code, Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith, private cannot claim ignorance of this Court’s
ruling allowing a choice of remedies has no merit.
The application of Article 3 of the Civil Code is limited to mandatory
and prohibitory laws. This may be deduced from the language of the
provision, which, notwithstanding a person’s ignorance, does not
excuse his or her compliance with the laws. The rule in Floresca
allowing private respondent a choice of remedies is neither
mandatory nor prohibitory. Accordingly, her ignorance thereof
cannot be held against her.