Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

Fourth Judicial Region
Antipolo City, Rizal
LUZ DIAZ,
Plaintiff
-versus- CIVIL CASE: 1
For: a!ages
EMMA CRISOSTOMO
Defendant
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, "uz iaz through counsel, respectfully sub!its this !e!orandu! to #it:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
$very person #ho, contrary to la#, #illfully or negligently causes da!age to
another shall inde!nify the latter for the sa!e %Art& '(, Civil Code)&
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an action for da!ages filed by Plaintiff "uz iaz against efendant $!!a
Crisosto!o, for the death her dog Tri*& Plaintiff suffered e!otional pain for the
lost of her dog Tri* #hich #as her co!panion since the death of her husband&
STATEMENT OF FACTS
+n order that this honorable court !ay be enlightened and guided in the ,udicious
disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the !aterial, relevant and
pertinent facts of the case to #it:
Plaintiff is "uz iaz, si*ty five %-.) years old, #ido# and a resident of
/ountain 0ie# 1ubdivision, Antipolo, Rizal #hile defendant is $!!a Crisosto!o,
forty t#o %2') years old, house#ife !arried and also a resident of /ountain 0ie#
1ubdivision, Antipolo, Rizal& Plaintiff and defendant have been neighbors for at
least three %3) years& Plaintiff alleges that in the afternoon of 4ctober '., '(5(, a
truc6 o#ned by the defendant7s carpenter, 8regorio Ti!bol, #as par6ed in front of
the defendant7s on a street that #as sloping& /r& Ti!bol has been #or6ing on the
renovation of defendant7s house& 9e has been a carpenter for at least thirty five %3.)
years:
Just before the incident, plaintiff #as ta6ing a nap in her house #hen she
noticed that her dog, Tri* #as !issing& 1he then loo6ed around the house until she
heard a crashing bang and a dog crying out& ;hen the plaintiff #ent outside her
gate, she sa# Tri* pinned under the #heel of the truc6& The truc6 #as bac6ed up
against a tree by the side#al6 and Tri* #as thrashing and s<uealing underneath the
truc6 #ith blood co!ing out his !outh& Plaintiff cried and screa!ed to =ilda, her
helper, and shouted for the guards #ho roa!ed the subdivision, but no one ca!e&
1he could not save hi! even if she #anted to because there #as no one in the
truc67s driver seat and she does not 6no# ho# to drive& 1he could only cry and
screa! #hile Tri* 6ept on ho#ling until it stopped !oving and !a6ing any sound&
9e died soon after:
According to the plaintiff, Tri* had been #ith her since her husband passed
a#ay eight years ago&Plaintiff observed that the truc6 had al#ays been par6ed in
front of the defendants house since the ti!e defendant7s house #as being
renovated&;hen the incident happened, defendant did not do anything e*cept to
call /r& Ti!bol& efendant insisted that the truc6 #as properly par6ed and #hat
happened to Tri* #as an accident and /r& Ti!bol could not be faulted& 4n the
other hand, /r& Ti!bol ad!itted that his truc6 #as of an old !odel& 9e bought it
second hand and had it overhauled and repainted& 9e also ad!itted that, #hen he
par6ed it on the day the incident happened, he put t#o %') large roc6s against the
bac6 #heels to !a6e sure the truc6 does not roll bac6 do#n the street& /r& Ti!bol
finally ad!itted that #hen he loo6ed at the scene after the incident happened, the
roc6s #ere no longer there& 9e concluded that so!eone !ust have re!oved the!:
Plaintiff de!anded that the defendant should give her another dog, but the
latter refused and insisted that #hat happened to Tri* #as plaintiff7s fault because
Tri* should have not been loose on the streets& efendant testified that Tri* #as a
pes6y dog and had co!plained about it !any ti!es& +n fact, it #as because of Tri*
that the defendant !et plaintiff for the first ti!e three %3) years ago& efendant
#ent to plaintiff7s house to co!plain that Tri* pulled out the plants in the yard:
efendant also !entioned that Tri* #ould dig holes in her la#n& +t #ould
fre<uently deposit its #astes on her drive#ay and also pee in front of her house,
leaving a foul s!ell& 4ne ti!e, Tri* even chased her little girl along the road:
efendant #ent to the e*tent of co!plaining the activities of Tri* before the
9o!eo#ner7s Association, so that the latter issued a >oard Resolution
stating that #andering dogs #ill be caught and brought to the !unicipal
dog pound&
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Emma Crisostomo exercised proper diligence in
making its premises safe for its neighbors.
2) Whether or not the carpenter was negligent when he parked
his car in front of the house of the defendant.
3) Whether or not the defendant may be held liable when the
truck of her carpenter ran oer the plainti!"s dog.
ARUMENTS!DISCUSSIONS :
1) Whether or not Emma Crisostomo exercised proper diligence in
making its premises safe for its neighbors.
/s& $!!a Crisosto!o did not e*ercise proper diligence in !a6ing its
pre!ises safe for its neighbors&
iligence on the part of the defendant should not be presu!ed but should be
proven that its e!ployees #ere not grossly negligent in !a6ing its pre!ises safe
for its neighbors&
As stated in Secosa vs. Francisco,G.R No. 160039, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA
273,277
;hen an in,ury is caused by the negligence of an e!ployee, there instantly
arises a presu!ption that there has been negligence on the part of the e!ployer,
either in the selection of his e!ployee or in the supervision over hi! after his
selection& The presu!ption !ay be rebutted by a clear sho#ing that the e!ployer
e*ercised the care and diligence of a good father of the fa!ily in the selection and
supervision of his e!ployee&
+n the instant case, there #as negligence on the part of the defendant since it failed
to #arn /r Ti!bol to par6 his truc6 properly since their place is slightly elevated&
2) Whether or not the carpenter was negligent when he parked
his car in front of the house of the defendant.
Article 210 o! t"e Civil Co#e
The obligation i!posed by Article '5?- is de!andable not only for one7s o#n acts
or o!issions, but also for those of persons for #ho! one is responsible&

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the !other, are responsible for
the da!ages caused by the !inor children #ho live in their co!pany&

8uardians are liable for da!ages caused by the !inors or incapacitated persons
#ho are under their authority and live in their co!pany&

The o#ners and !anagers of an establish!ent or enterprise are li6e#ise
responsible for da!ages caused by their e!ployees in the service of the branches
in #hich the latter are e!ployed or on the occasion of their functions&

$!ployers shall be liable for the da!ages caused by their e!ployees and
household helpers acting #ithin the scope of their assigned tas6s, even though the
for!er are not engaged in any business or industry&

The 1tate is responsible in li6e !anner #hen it acts through a special agent: but not
#hen the da!age has been caused by the official to #ho! the tas6 done properly
pertains, in #hich case #hat is provided in Article '5?- shall be applicable&

"astly, teachers or heads of establish!ents of arts and trades shall be liable for
da!ages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they re!ain
in their custody&

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease #hen the persons herein
!entioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a fa!ily to
prevent da!age&
+n the case cited it #as very clear that the defendant as o#ner of the house in
#hich the carpenter /r& Ti!bol #ho is currently #or6ing in /s $//A
CR+141T4/4 is responsible for the da!age caused by his e!ployee& $!ployers
shall be liable for the da!ages caused by their e!ployee and household helpers
acting #ithin the scope of their assigned tas6s, even though the for!er are not
engaged in any business or industry&
3) Whether or not the defendant may be held liable when the
truck of her carpenter ran oer the plainti!"s dog.
Article 2176 o! t"e Civil Co#e

;hoever by act or o!ission causes da!age to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the da!age done& 1uch fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-e*isting contractual relation bet#een the parties, is called a <uasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter&

Article 2179 o! t"e Civil Co#e

;hen the plaintiff7s o#n negligence #as the i!!ediate and pro*i!ate cause
of his in,ury, he cannot recover da!ages& >ut if his negligence #as only
contributory, the i!!ediate and pro*i!ate cause of the in,ury being the
defendant7s lac6 of due care, the plaintiff !ay recover da!ages, but the courts shall
!itigate the da!ages to be a#arded&
$*cept as provided by la# or by stipulation, one is entitled to an ade<uate
co!pensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by hi! as he has duly proved&
1uch co!pensation is referred to as actual or co!pensatory da!ages&
PRA@$R
;9$R$F4R$, pre!ises considered, it is prayed to this 94=4RA>"$
C4ART, that ,udge!ent be rendered !a6ing $//A CR+141T4/4, liable for
da!ages and ordering the defendant to pay the value for the plaintiff7s dog&
4ther relief ,ust and e<uitable is li6e#ise prayed for&
Respectfully sub!itted&
Antiplo City, Rizal& August '., '(5'&
C"#n$il f"% t&e Plaintiff
ATTY' MARICEL SUA N AYIN
+>P "ifeti!e =o& 55555: BC5(C'(53
PTR =o& 22222: BC5(C'(53
Roll of Attorney =o& 33333-22222
/C"$ Co!pliance =o& +++ D 52322
Copy Furnished:
ATTY' EFREN M' AYIN
Counsel for efendant
5-?./J CA$=C4 1T& /A>4"4 C$>A C+T@