ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

SAMPLE ANSWER NO. 2

FOR THE CASE OF LUZ DIAZ

MEMORANDUM
FOR THE DEFENDANT
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
A. FACTS CLAIMED BY THE COMPLAINANT
1. Complainant is Ms. Luz Diaz (Ms. Diaz or Complainant hereinafter), 65
years old, a widow and a resident of Mountain View Subdivision, Antipolo,
Rizal. She resided at the said subdivision for thirty (30) years.
2. Complainant owned a poodle named Trix. Trix has been complainants
constant companion since the death of Ms. Diazs husband eight (8) years
ago.
3. In the afternoon of October 25, 2010, Trix was crushed to death by a truck
owned by a carpenter parked in front of the house of her neighbor, defendant
Mrs. Emma Crisostomo (Mrs. Crisostomo or Defendant for brevity).
4. The carpenter worked for Mrs. Crisostomo, who was then renovating her
home.
5. The truck of Mrs. Crisostomos carpenter rolled backwards on the slopping
street from where it was parked in front of Mrs. Crisostomos house.
6. No one was in the truck at the time of the accident.
7. Ms. Diaz witnessed how Trix died while pinned down by the truck. She cried
and cried because she loved Trix and took care of her like a baby, being her
only companion since her husbands death.
B. FACTS CLAIMED BY THE DEFENDANT
1. Defendant Mrs. Emma Crisostomo is 42 years old, married, and a housewife.
2. Defendant Crisostomo is a neighbor of complainant and claims to have first
met her because she knocked on Ms. Diazs door three (3) years ago to
complain that her dog, Trix, pulled out the plants in her yard.
3. Defendant claims that the incident was not anyones fault because the dog
should not be out roaming the streets. Defendant further claims that the dog,
Trix, was a pesky dog and she has complained about it many times because
the dog dug holes in her lawn, deposited waste on her driveway, and also

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

peed in front of her house, leaving a foul smell. In fact, Mrs. Crisostomo
claims that Trix even chased her little girl down the road.
4. Defendant further claim that in fact, she complained against Trix about to
eight (8) to (10) times already in the last three (3) years and that that she
even complained to the homeowners association after Trix chased her little
girl.
5. Defendant claims that the homeowners association passed a board
resolution banning wandering dogs in the subdivision and warned Ms. Diaz
about her dog. Mrs. Crisostomo identified a document entitled Board
Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009 issued by the Mountain View Subdivision
Homeowners Association which was marked as Exhibit 1 for the
defendant.
6. Defendant also presented Mr. Gregorio Timbol, the carpenter who owned the
erring truck, who claimed that he properly parked the car in front of the
house of Mrs. Crisostomo in accordance with the subdivision rules.
7. Mr. Timbol claims that he even placed two (2) large rocks against the wheels
of the truck to make sure that it doesnt roll back down the street.
8. Mr. Timbol admitted that the truck was an old model, and that he bought it
second hand and had it overhauled and repainted.
9. Mr. Timbol claims that that claim of Mrs. Diaz that he carelessly parked his
truck is not true and that he followed all subdivision guidelines.
10. Mr. Timbol claims that someone must have removed the rocks because the
rocks were no longer there when he took a look at the scene after the
accident.
C. SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. The complainant and defendant are neighbors at the Mountain View
Subdivision.
2. The complainants dog, Trix, was killed by the truck of a carpenter when said
truck rolled backwards on the slopping street from where it was parked in
front of the defendants house on October 25, 2010.
3. The carpenter who owned the truck, Mr. Gregorio Timbol, was working at
the home renovation of defendant Mrs. Crisostomo at the time of the
incident.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

D. SUMMARY OF DISPUTED FACTS

1. Complainant claims that defendant should be held liable for damages
because the death of her dog, Trix, was the fault of defendants carpenter.
2. On the other hand, defendant claims that death of the dog was not anyones
fault but complainants because the dog should not be out roaming the
streets.
3. Complainant claims that the truck of Mr. Timbol was not properly parked
because it moved by itself.
4. Defendant, through her witness, Mr. Timbol claims that the truck was not
carelessly park and that he followed all subdivision guidelines.

II. ISSUES:
It is submitted that the following are the principal issues, which must be
resolved in the case:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEATH OF
COMPLAINANTS DOG, WAS THE FAULT OF THE
CARPENTER, MR. TIMBOL.

2. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT MAY BE HELD
LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSION OF HER
CARPENTER, MR. TIMBOL.

3. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT MAY BE HELD
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.


IV. ARGUMENTS
A. THE DEATH OF THE DOG WAS AN ACCIDENT; THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
OF THE DOGS DEATH IS THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF
COMPLAINANT.
1. It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant, Ms. Diaz has been previously
warned about her dog and that the Mountain View Homeowners Association
has also passed a board resolution banning wandering dogs in the
subdivision.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

2. A copy of the said resolution, Board Resolution No. 3, series of 2009, was in
fact identified and marked in evidence during the testimony of defendant as
Exhibit 1 for the defendant.
3. When Ms. Diaz allowed her dog, Trix, to again wander off at the time she was
killed when she was accidentally ran over by the truck of Mr. Timbol, it
cannot be denied that Ms. Diaz was actually in violation of a duly
promulgated and existing resolution of the Mountain View Homeowners
Association. Hence, she was clearly at fault and cannot ascribe the blame to
anybody else. This is an instance when the principle of res ipsa loquitur may
be properly applied.
4. As can be seen from the foregoing, the proximate cause of the accident was
the fact that complainant allowed her dog, Trix, to wander the streets of the
subdivision in violation of Resolution No. 3, series of 2009 of the
Homeowners subdivision.
5. In the case of Ramos vs. C.O.L. Realty Corporation [G.R. No. 184905
promulgated on August 28, 2009; 597 SCRA 526, 535-536], the Supreme
Court held:
Proximate cause is defined as that cause,
which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any intervening cause, produces the
injury and without which the result would not
have occurred. Xxx.
[Underscoring and emphasis supplied]
6. Without a doubt, it is this undue failure and refusal of the complainant to
comply with the rules and keep her dog, Trix, off the streets of the
subdivision that is the proximate cause of the accident.
7. Indeed, the act of complainant of allowing her dog to freely roam the streets
of the subdivision, she was courting disaster. Some form of accident
involving Trix was bound to happen.
B. BY EXPRESS PROVISION OF LAW, DEFENDANT MAY NOT BE HELD
LIABLE SINCE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE FOR THE DOGS DEATH WAS
THE FAULT OF THE COMPLAINANT

1. As discussed above, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the proximate
cause of the incident is complainants failure and or refusal to comply with
the reasonable rules promulgated by the Homeowners Association.
2. This is highlighted by the fact that defendant has in fact complained about
complainants dog no less than eight (8) to ten (10) times in the last three (3)
years.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

3. In fact, complainant was already warned by the Homeowners Association

about her dog, as evidenced by Board Resolution No. 3, series of 2009 of the
Mountain View Subdivision Home Owners Association [See: Exhibit 1 of
the Defendant].
4. Since the proximate cause of the death of Trix is actually the fault or
negligence of the complainant, defendant cannot be held liable damages. As
expressly provided in Article 2179 of the Civil Code:
When the plaintiffs own negligence was
the immediate and proximate cause of his injury,
he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence is
only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the court
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

[Underscoring and emphasis supplied]
5. Hence, complainants claim must clearly be dismissed.

C. EVEN ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE CARPENTER
WAS NEGLIGENT, DEFENDANT CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR HIS ACT
1. In the instant case, complainant ascribes the blame or fault upon the
carpenter, Mr. Timbol. No act of fault or negligence is being ascribed directly
against the defendant.
2. While it is not disputed that at the time of the accident, the owner of the
erring truck, Mr. Timbol, was working as a carpenter for renovation of
defendants house, there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between
the work being done by Mr. Timbol for defendant and his alleged act of
carelessly parking his truck.
3. The alleged negligent act of Mr. Timbol has nothing to do with the work she
was performing as a carpenter of defendant. In short, he was not performing
the said act within the scope of his assigned task as a carpenter.
4. Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Timbol was negligent,
defendant cannot be held liable for the said act or omission because it has
nothing to do with his assigned task as carpenter of defendant.
5. As expressly provided by Article 2180 of the Civil Code:

Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

even though the former are not engaged in any

business or industry.

[Underscoring supplied]
6. In the instant case, Mr. Timbol was clearly acting outside the scope of his
assigned task as a carpenter of the defendant when he purportedly parked
his truck in a careless manner. Hence, no liability can be ascribed to the
defendant.
7. In the light of the foregoing, it is very clear that defendant Mrs. Crisostomo
cannot be held liable for damages under the circumstances for the act or
omission of Mr. Timbol.
8. The dismissal of the instant case and/or the denial of complainants claims
are clearly proper and in order.
V. PRAYER/RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that JUDGMENT be rendered for the Defendant and against the
Complainant:
1. FINDING that the Defendant is not in any way liable for the death of
Trix, the dog of Complainant;
2. DISMISSING the instant case; and/or
3. DENYING the complainants claims for lack of merit.
OTHER RELIEF AND REMEDIES as may be just and equitable under the
circumstances are also prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph