rights. It is the indemnity recoverable by a person who has sustained injury either in his person, property or relative rights, through the act or default of another (25 C.J.S. 452).     The principle underscored in the case of Floresca was further affirmed in the later case of Ysmael Maritime Corporation v. Avelino,[20] wherein we emphasized that once the claimant had already exercised his choice to pursue his right under one remedy, he is barred from proceeding with an alternative remedy. As eloquently laid down by Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan:   It is therefore clear that respondents had not only opted to recover under the Act but they had also been duly paid. At the very least, a sense of fair play would demand that if a person entitled to a choice of remedies made a first election and accepted the benefits thereof, he should no longer be allowed to exercise the second option. Having staked his fortunes on a particular remedy, (he) is precluded from pursuing the alternate course, at least until the prior claim is rejected by the Compensation Commission. In the case at bar, Florentina was forced to institute a civil suit for indemnity under the New Civil Code, after Candano Shipping refused to compensate her husbands death.   The pertinent provision of the New Civil Code reads:   Article 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other employees, even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any illness or diseases caused by such employment or as the result of the nature of employment. If the mishap was due to the employees own notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for compensation. When the employees lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the compensation shall be equitably reduced.     In the case of Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court validated the strength of the aforementioned provision and made the employer liable for the injury suffered by its employee in the course of employment. We thus ruled: