You are on page 1of 6

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region


Regional Trial Court
Branch I
Quezon City

JONNA BUENO,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Civil Case No.


For: Damages

GLORIA SUPERMART, INC.,


Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, unto his Honorable Court respectfully submits this
Memorandum to support her cause of action and alleges:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
This case refers to an action for recovery of damages filed by the plaintiff against Gloria
Supermart, Inc., before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. She claims P500, 000.00 as damages
for the injuries suffered by her minor son, Ricky, caused by the negligence of the defendants
employees and for the emotional pain and suffering that it caused to them. Defendant Gloria Supermart
denies her claim and asserts that it was not negligent. Instead, it claims that the accident was caused by
Jonnas negligence and she alone should be made to suffer the consequences of her own actions. Both
parties have presented their evidences and witnesses. The case is now submitted for decision.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
In order that this Honorable Court may be enlightened and guided in the judicious disposition of
this case, the following are the material, relevant and pertinent facts:
1.
Plaintiff is Jonna Bueno, 35 years old, married and a resident of 89 Little Baguio St.,
San Juan
City, Metro Manila, while the Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc. is a duly registered
corporation with principal place of business located along Ortigas Avenue, San Juan, Metro Manila.
2.
Defendant operates a grocery store from where the plaintiff had been purchasing her
groceries for the past 20 years.
3.
On May 11, 2010 at 10 AM, plaintiff with her son Ricky, a 5 year old boy, went to
Gloria Supermart, Inc., to buy some groceries.
4.
While picking some groceries, a small ball rolled along the aisle that caught the
attention of Ricky who ran after the ball to catch it;
5.
Upon trying to catch the ball, plaintiff saw Ricky slipped with a heavy bang on the wet
section of the aisle;
6.
Plaintiff immediately came to his rescue to help him as she shrieked from pain in his
wrist which he used to stop his fall;
7.
Plaintiff testified that the cause of Rickys fall was due to the puddle of liquid on the
floor that seeped out from a leaking bottle in a nearby shelf;
8.
She testified further that there was no supermarket cleaner around during that time and
no warning sign had been placed in the area;

9.
Furthermore, she heard someone shout, Hoy Bata ingat! May basa diyan!;
10.
Plaintiff asked a store clerk to help her carry Ricky for her to bring him to the Philippine
Orthopedic Hospital;
11.
That her son Ricky was operated in his right wrist to restore the position of a fractured
bone as shown by the x-ray picture;
12.
Ricky was able to recover only six (6) weeks from the accident;
13.
That the plaintiff incurred P22, 840.00 for doctors fee, hospitalization and medicine as
shown by her receipts;
14.
She also spent P5, 000. 00 for the toys she bought for Ricky to distract him from the
pain he suffered;
Moreover, on direct examination and on behalf of Gloria Supermart Inc., their witness
testified on the following;
15.
Defendants witness is Rene Castro, 55 years old and a resident 12 V.G Cruz, Sampaloc,
Manila;
16.
He is a supervisor of Gloria Supermart Inc., and works in the store for five (5) years;
17.
He testified that on May 10, 2010, he heard a commotion and found out that Ricky was
lying on the floor in pain;
18.
He saw that couples of battles of syrup in plastic containers, except one glass bottle was
broken and spilled part of its contents on the floor;
19.
He speculated that Ricky must have been the one who bumped into the shelf that caused
the glass container to break as accordingly inferred from Rickys position;
Upon cross-examination, defendants witness stated the following;
20.
He did not actually see the accident when it happened;
21.
There were already accidents resulting in injury in the supermart before as hundreds of
people are shopping in the store;
22.
There were even cases of shoplifting in the store;
23.
During the accident of Ricky, the Supermart management did not bothet to take pictures
of the puddle on the floor and the bottles of syrup that was the cause of Rickys accident.
24.
GSI alleged that that Jonna, Rickys mother contributed to the accident of her neglect in
supervising Ricky.
25.
GSI also alleged that it provide immediate help and assistance to Ricky and her mother.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1.
Whether or not Gloria exercised proper diligence in ensuring the safety of its customers.
2.
Whether or not the proximate cause of the accident is the gross negligence of Glorias
management and employees.
3.
Whether or not the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
4.
Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for damages.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
1.
Gloria Supermart, Inc.s management and employees did not exercise the proper diligence in
ensuring the safety of its customers.
Gloria contends that the injuries suffered by Ricky were caused by an accident which is beyond
its control. The injury could have been lessened if Bueno and her son exercised proper care.

In Jarco Marketing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, the Supreme
Court ruled that an accident is an unforeseen event which no fault or negligence attaches to the
defendant. On the other hand, negligence is defined as omission to do something which a prudent
and reasonable man would not do.
In addition, in Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
159270, August 22, 2005, the Court provides that the test to determine whether a person is doing a
negligent act is would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed,
foresee the harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the cause actually pursued?
Here, Gloria cannot claim that the cause of the injury was an accident or an unforeseen event.
Gloria knows that there are many people going in and out of their store. Its business caters to the needs
of the family. Hence, they can reasonably expect parents to bring their children. Since they are
expecting many customers including children Gloria should have deployed one personnel for each aisle
to oversee and ensure the safety of the customers. However, at the time of the accident, there is no
grocery clerk, the incident could be avoided. There should be an employee who should immediately
clean wet floors to prevent accidents. But there was none. \
Further in the place of the incident, there was no sign to caution the customers about the wet
floor. Although Mrs. Bueno admitted that someone shouted and warned her, the liability of Gloria is not
negated. Shouting at someone is not sufficient means of informing a person of an impending danger.
Therefore, Gloria is negligent because it did not provide for necessary personnel to assist its
customers.
In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can be applied when
the following requisites concur:
a.
the accident was of such character as to warrant inference that it would not have
happened except for defendants negligence; and
b.
the accident must be because of instrumentality under the control of defendant;
c.
the accident must not be due to voluntary act of the plaintiff. (Child Learning Center,
Inc. v. Tagorio G.R. No. 150920, November 25, 2005).
Here the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can be applied. The accident could not happen if Gloria
provided for sufficient precautionary measures to avoid the incident.
Mr. Castro, the Supervisor, admitted that accident happen about once a year in their premises
(TSN June 14, 2011). Bearing this in mind, Gloria still failed to provide safety measures to prevent or
lessen the accidents.
It cannot be denied that defendant GSI is negligent in maintaining the safety in its premises
specially that being a supermarket; its store can be considered as an attractive nuisance.
Under the law, and as held by the Supreme Court in Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan, et al.
(91 Phil. 488) (1952):
One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character
likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from
playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if
the child is technically trespasser in the premises.
In this case, defendant GSI is maintaining premises containing merchandise of a character likely
to attract children, like Ricky, in play and unfortunately, GSI failed to exercise ordinary care to prevent

Ricky from playing therewith since no one was around to see it that Ricky will not be injured by such
merchandise. Hence, GSI is liable for the injuries sustained by Ricky.
2.
The failure of Gloria to provide necessary precaution to avoid the accident is the proximate
cause of the injury.
Under the general abuse of right principle embodied under Article 9 of the new civil code, every
person must, in the exercise of his rights and in performance of this duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.
Complementing this principle is Article 20 of the Civil Code which lays down the cause of
action of the plaintiff. It provides that:
Article 20. Every person contrary to law, willfully or negligently caused damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.
In Ramos v. C.O.L Realty Corporation, G.R. No 184905, August 28, 2009, proximate cause is
that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
Witness Rene, testified that children were the sole responsibility of their parents. While this
may be true to a certain extent, considering that Article 209 of the Civil Code provides that authority
over minor children are with the parents, Gloria Supermart could have, by exercising ordinary care,
prevented or at least minimized the possibility of mishaps occurring.
Defendant cannot also seek to be exempted through Article 221 of the Family Code, which
makes parents liable for the damages and injuries caused, by the acts or omission of their
unemancipated minor. This is because such provision is qualified by the statement, subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law.
Here, Gloria claims that the cause of the injury was accident and Bueno and her son contributed
to the damage. However, Gloria failed to substantiate its claim. The act of Bueno in letting her child go
after the ball is not sufficient intervening cause which could have negated Glorias liability. Therefore,
the direct and immediate cause of the injury can be imputed against Gloria and not Bueno.
3.

Plaintiff exercised ordinary care as expected under the circumstances.

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party contributing as legal cause to
the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own
protection. It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured
which, concurring with the defendants negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.
4.

Plaintiff should be compensated.

National Power Corp. v. Heirs of Noble Cosianan, G.R. No. 165967, November 27, 2008, 152
SCRA 71 and Ramos v. C.O.L Realty Corp., G.R. No. 184905, August 26, 2009, 597 SCRA 526. Rules
of Court, Rule 131, SCC.
For Actual and Moral Damages
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that whomever causes damage to another, either
by act of omission and with either fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The
obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom one is responsible. Owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise

are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which
the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Defendant, as employer, is liable under Article 2180, supra, for the negligence of its employees.
Not having raised nor proved that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
the damage, its liability is fixed.
In addition, Article 2214 provides that contributory negligence tempers the award for damages.
Here, no negligence can be imputed both to Bueno and her son. The act of Bueno before and after the
accident shows that she did not cause the injury. She could not have foreseen the wet floor.
The opinion of Castro that Ricky bumped into the shelf cannot be used to prove that Ricky is
negligent Under Rule 130, Sec. 48 of the Rules of Court; opinion of a witness is generally admissible.
Also, Castro did not see the accident first hand. His testimony was merely a speculation.
Among the damages for which defendant should be made liable is the reimbursement of the
actual expenses for hospitalization incurred by the plaintiff from the defendants negligence.
Article 2199, supra, provides that compensation for pecuniary loss suffered is in order only
when duly proved. Such is the case. Plaintiff, through her testimony and by adequate receipts, has duly
proved her pecuniary loss.
In addition, since plaintiff suffered mental anguish for the injury suffered by his son, she is also
entitled to claim for moral damages. This finds support in the provision in Article 2217 of the Civil
Code which states:
Article 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, freight, serious
anxiety, besmirched humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.
To be sure, Article 2219 of the Civil Code expressly provides that:
Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
xxx (2) xxx
xxx
xxx Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; xxx
xxxx It cannot be denied, therefore, that
plaintiff is indeed entitled also to moral damages for the physical injuries sustained by her minor son
Ricky.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court
that judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant:
1)
DECLARING defendant to be liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiffs son Ricky;
2)
ORDERING defendant to pay the plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P27, 840.00,
plus attorneys fees and cost of the suit; and
3)
ORDERING defendant to pay the plaintiff moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00
or as the Court may deem proper in the premises.
OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City. Philippines.
(Signed)
Atty. RICEL CRIZIA L. GALINDEZ
Counsel for the Plaintiff

City of Manila
Roll No.
PTR No.
Manila IBP No.

You might also like