Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE PARTIES
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
123, and a Mazda passenger taxi with Motor No. A1234 and
Plate No. DEF 456 along the Senator Gil J. Puyat Avenue,
Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines.
3. That during the incident, the cargo truck was driven by
defendant Brad Feet and owned by defendant Ryan Goslee;
while the passenger taxi was driven by defendant Christian Veil
and owned by defendant Henry Kabil.
4. That immediately before the collision, the cargo truck and the
passenger taxi was approaching each other, coming from the
opposite directions of Senator Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati City.
That while the taxi was in the process of overtaking a hand
truck, the two vehicles sideswiped each other at each others
left side and after which, the truck skidded towards the other
side of the road and hitting a post. That the front left side
portion of the body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall of
the passenger taxi, ripping off the said wall from the drivers
seat to the rear seat.
5. That due to the impact, passengers of the taxi were thrown out
and died as a result of the injuries they sustained.
6. That the plaintiff demanded from the defendants
indemnification for all the losses and damages sustained by
reason of the death of his wife and 2 sons.
7. The defendants set a meeting with the plaintiff at Burgeran
Makinarya along Kropek Highway, Quezon City and held on
July 25, 2013. That the meeting was held for the purpose of
amicably settling the claims between the parties, but the
plaintiff did not agree with the amount of settlement offered by
the defendants. The amount offered by the defendants embodied
in the agreement was only 800,000 php where in fact the loss of
the plaintiff was more than the amount offered.
8. That despite unrelenting refusal of the plaintiff to the offer, the
defendants frequently visited the house of the plaintiff to
convince him to accept the offer.
9. That the plaintiff never agreed to the offer of the defendants.
Conversely, plaintiff was forced to take it due to his sorrow and
lack of choice. After such receipt, an affidavit of quitclaim was
presented to him and by means of intimidation and undue
influence, he was forced to sign the same.
IV.
ISSUES
ARGUMENTS
DISCUSSION
A. Liability of Defendants
A.1 Nature and Definition
The primary legal basis for private respondent's cause
of action is Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
Negligence is defined in the case of Jarco Marketing
Corporation vs CA. negligence is the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a
prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is
"the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of
another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance
which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury. The case further compared negligence
from an accident. An accident pertains to an unforeseen
event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the
defendant. It is "a fortuitous circumstance, event or
By:
CHRISTINE BERNADETTE CRUZ
Counsel for the Plaintiff
IBP No. 654321; 01/10/13 Muntinlupa
PTR. No. 7654321; 01/10/13 - Muntinlupa
Roll No. 54321; 08/08/08
MCLE No. I 432100; 12/12/12
MCLE No. II 876500; 12/12/12
Date: ______________