MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, by counsel and unto his Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In this action, the plaintiff seeks to file a case against the Defendant.

This case concerns the dog victim who is the Plaintiffs child. The child,
Lorraine Ignacio, was bitten by a dog whose owner is the defendant, Mickey
Enriquez. Lorraine, an eight-year old, was playing in the backyard of the Enriquez
house in Cagayan De Oro along with the neighbors child. She was treated for
multiple mangled wounds and was given a vaccine of anti-rabies by a doctor.

ISSUES
This memorandum will discuss the following issues:
First, whether or not the Defendant is liable against the biting of his dog to the
child

of

his

neighbor

Second, whether or not the Plaintiff is liable for contributory negligence.

Third, whether or not Enriquez (Defendant) see to it that the dog is regularly
vaccinated with anti-rabies vaccine.

Fourth, whether or not Enriquez (Defendant) will shoulder the expenses that
the victim incurred in connection with the injuries she sustained by the reason
thereof.

Arguments and Discussions

The Plaintiff (Ignacio) is entitled to his claims, such as to gain compensation
for the expenses incurred in connection with the injuries she sustained because the
defendant (Enriquez) is liable and that the liability thereof is based on strict
liability. The cause of the incident is the negligence attributable to the Enriquez
family. When Lorraine (as stated by the defendant) provoked the dog into biting
her, Enriquez could have prevented it from happening by maintaining control over
the dog whether the dog is tamed or not. The minority of the child affects the
outcome of the case. It was stated that the dog was provoked by the child into
biting her, yet this does not subject the child to be liable for contributory
negligence or any negligence for that matter because of the minority of the child.
The pet owner is still responsible for his own negligence based on strict liability.
Moreover, the fact that Lorraine Ignacio was given an anti-rabies makes Enriquez
liable for the regular maintenance over the dog as a pet owner.

Article 2183 of the Civil Code, which states that the possessor of an animal
or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case
the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who
has suffered damage clearly applies in this case.

In addition, Section 5f of Republic Act 9842 also applies, which states that
all pet owners are required to assist the dog bite victim immediately and shoulder
the medical expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the victims
injuries.

Moreover, Article 2176 of the Civil code also applies, which states that
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 quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of quasi-delicts. Enriquez, having caused
damages to the opposing party for the reason of negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done even if there is no pre-existing contractual relation was agreed
upon by both parties. Also, the defendant knew that there were children present in
the vicinity and that he is required to exercise greater vigilance

As stated under Section 5a and 5b of Republic Act No. 9482, pet owners are
required to have their dog/s regularly vaccinated against Rabies and maintain a

registration card that shall record all the past vaccinations of their dog/s for
medical purposes. Enriquez is then subject to mandatory registration and
vaccination of their dog.

Under Section 5c of Republic Act No. 9482, the owner is responsible for
maintaining control over the dog and not allow it to roam around the streets or any
public place without a leash.

The case clearly displays that Enriquez should be held liable for the dogbiting incident for the Republic Acts that supported the issues. Enriquez, as stated
above, could have been able to prevent the incident but was negligent in his part.
Lorraine Ignacio, being of minor age, is not subject to be at fault and the parents of
the child are entitled to file for damages. Enriquez is liable to shoulder for the
medical expenses of the child while also maintain safety over everyone
surrounding the dog by regular vaccination and monitoring its medical record.

Therefore, Enriquez, showing negligence, is liable for the damages as stated

in the articles and provisions, and that Ignacio is entitled for claims of
compensation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff earnestly prays that they will be able to receive the
damages to be given by the Defendant which includes the shouldering of medical
expenses and other incidental expenses and also ensuring the safety of the child
and other people around the dog.
Plaintiff prays for such other reliefs and remedies that are just and equitable
under the premises.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, by counsel and unto his Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In this action, the plaintiff seeks to to file a case against the Defendant

This case concerns the contract of Long Term Lease between Marco and
Watts Inc. that ended on November 01, 2016. In the end of this contract, Marco
had wished to have the contract REFORMED, seeking either an extension of the
contract or a compensation of twenty-five Million Pesos (25M php) constituting
his investment (i.e. the construction of a S-Storey bldg.). However, the contract had
stated an agreement wherein ALL IMPROVEMENTS made or introduced by the
lessee (Marco) should belong to Watts Inc. The leased premised should also be

turned over peacefully without the need of demand in the completion of the
contract.

ISSUES

This memorandum will discuss the following issues:

I.

First, whether or not the plaintiff (Marco) has the right to demand for his
requests (Extension of contract or compensation for improvements).

Second,

whether

or

not

the

contract

could

be

subjected

for

REFORMATION.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff (Marco) is not entitled to his claims, such as to gain an

extension for the contract and in the asking for compensation for all his
investments in the leased property because of the conditions they had made prior to
the creation and agreement of the contract.

Article 1315 of the Civil code, which states that contracts are perfected by
mere CONSENT and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the
fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences
which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law,
all of which clearly applies in this case.

In addition, Article 1255 of the Civil Code would also apply, which states
that the contracting parties may make the agreement and establish the clauses and
conditions which they may deem advisable, provided they are not in contravention
of law, morals, or public order.

Moreover, Article 1159 of the Civil Code would definitely apply, which
states that obligations arising from contracts have the force of the law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.

In this instant case, it clearly shows that Watts Inc. is merely following the
terms and conditions set within the contract with Marco, and if Marco ever wished
to push through with his requests, he would not be following the condition, to
turn-over ALL IMPROVEMENTS without the need of demand as stated in the
contract therefore breaching the contract as result. Moreover, Marco has no right to
ask for reformation since the contract has already been completed, hence handing
the property back to Watts Inc. If and ever he would wish to ask for extension, it

would already concern the creation of another contract with Watts Inc. and not the
reformation of the contract which in fact has already ended.

Therefore, Marcos request CANNOT be permitted for he has lost the right
over the property, the contract had clearly stated its conditions, and the fact that the
contract has already ended leaving reformation as a nulled action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff earnestly prays that his livelihood be not affected

by his loss and that his requests be granted so that damages experienced be
mitigated and recovery be made quicker and easier.
Plaintiff prays for such other reliefs and remedies that are just and equitable
under the premises.

LAWHIST K33
GROUP MEMORANDUM

Submitted to:
Atty. Larry Ignacio

Submitted by:
Kith Macaraeg
Matt Salcedo
Katrina Villarama
Izzeah Ramos