An exception to said rule is where a claimant who has

higher damages but he cannot pursue both courses of action simultaneously. An exception to said rule
is where a claimant who has already been paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act may still sue
for damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening facts or developments occurring after
he opted for the first remedy. The choice of the first remedy based on ignorance or on a mistake of fact
nullifies the choice as it was not an intelligent choice.
Here, the CA held that private respondent’s case came under the exception because private respon-
dent was unaware of petitioner’s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State
Insurance Fund. This is a mistake of fact that will make this case fall under the exception. The CA fur-
ther held that not only was private respondent ignorant of the facts, but of her rights as well because
she testified that she only reached elementary school and did not know what damages could be recov-
ered from the death of her husband; and that she did not know that she may also recover from the
Civil Code more than from the ECC.
Hence, the respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the Civil Code as she made a
waiver by election under a clear mistake of fact and without knowledge of her rights.