Republic of the Philippines Nati Nationa onal Capi Capital J udi udicial Re Region Regional Trial Court Quezon City, Branch I
J ONNA BUENO BUENO, Plaintiff, -versus versus--
Civil vil Case No. 27 27--11 1120 2011 11 For: Damages
GLORIA GLORIA SUPER SUPERMA MART, RT, INC. Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the following Memorandum orandumand states that: PREFATORY PREFATORY STATEMENT TAT EMENT This This case refer fers to an action ion for for recovery of da damages filed filed by the plain lainttiff for for the inju injurries ies sustained by her 5-year old son when the latter slipped on the wet floor in one of the aisle’s of the def defendant’s nt’s grocery store. Plainti Pl aintifff claims claims that that the def defendant dant is is li liabl able for the negli gligent act of its employees who failed to clear the puddle of liquid through appropriate signs or barriers. Defendant efendant on the other hand hand clai claim ms that the event was merely an unfort unfortuna unate te accide ccident nt for for which whi ch it coul could not not be held lliiabl able. In I n any event, vent, defenda ndant claim claims, the pla plaintiff ntif f is gui guilty of contri contribu butory tory negl negliigence gence. STATEMENT TAT EMENT OF THE FACTS The The follo follow wing ing ar are th the un undisp isputed fac facts called lled from from th the ev evide idence pr presented by by both parties: (1) Pla Pl aintiff ntiff J onna onna Bueno is of le l egal age, marri marrie ed, and and a resi resident of 89 Li Little ttle Baguio St., San San Jua J uan City, Ci ty, Me M etro Ma Manila nil a, whil while Def Defenda ndant Glori Gloria a Supe Supermart, Inc. I nc. is is a duly duly registered registered corporati corporation with with pri princi ncipa pall place place of busine business located along Orti Ortiga gas s Aven Avenue ue, San San Jua J uan, Me Metro Ma Manila nil a. (2) Defendant efendant operates a grocery store store from from where the plai plainti ntifff had been been purchasing purchasing her groceries groceri es for the past 20 years. years. (3) On May M ay 11, 11, 2010, 2010, at about 10:00 10:00 a.m., plainti plaintifff, together with with her 5-yea 5-year old old son Ricky, went went to the the Def Defendant’s nt’s store to shop shop for for groceri grocerie es. A small red ball which was rolling along one of the aisle’s caught Ricky’s attention. While running after the
ball, Ricky suddenly slipped on a wet section of the aisle. He however used his right wrist to break the fall. (4) Plaintiff, with the assistance of a store clerk, immediately brought Ricky to the orthopedic Hospital where his right wrist was operated on to restore the position of a fractured bone. Thereafter he was made to stay in the hospital overnight. Plaintiff spent P22,840.00 for the doctor’s fee, hospitalization and medicine, evidenced by receipts. (5) Upon Ricky’s discharge from the hospital it took about six weeks for him to recover the use of his right wrist. To distract him from the pain suffered, plaintiff incurred expenses of approximately P5,000.00 for toys. ISSUES (1) Whether or not the event was an accident for which defendant may be held liable; (2) Whether or not the defendants’ employees were negligent in failing to clear the wet floor and/or to provide adequate warning to customers of the existence of the puddle of liquid; (3) Whether or not the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence; and (4) Whether of not the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for damages. ARGUMENTS The issues shall be addressed in seriatim: (1)
THE INCIDENT WAS A FORESEEABLE EVENT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED
An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attached to the defendant. It occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary case and the event, not caused by fault of any person, could not have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence. 1 Defendants’ claim that the incident was a mere accident is neglected by the testimony of its own witness. Mr. Rene Castro, the supermarket supervisor, confirmed in his crossexamination that “accidents” normally occur in defendant’s supermarket. In fact they occur about once a year such that the defendant have established in dealing with such “accidents”. “Accidents” having been treated by the defendant as a normal occurrence and for which a procedure for dealing with them has been established, are thus taken out of the context of unforeseeable events. What the defendant defines as “accidents” are actually mere unfortunate occurrences which could be prevented but which are nonetheless not prevented due to fault or negligence despite its forseeability. Accidents, in order to exculpate defendant from liability, is one that in unforeseen. In this case, the incident was foreseeable, an normal occurrence which could have been prevented 1
Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA375
had the defendants’ employees follow the procedures established for dealing with them. Procedures which include the prevention of the so-called “accidents”. (2)
DEFENDANTS EMPL OYEES WERE NEGLIGENT IN MAINTAINING THE SAFE CONDITION OF THE STORE
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.2 In the ordinary course of things one can foresee that a person who might by chance step on a puddle of liquid or walk on a slippery floor would most likely slip. In fact this is a common sight which may be prevented by the immediate clearing of the liquid, drying of the floor, or placing appropriate indicators of the wet floor. In the last instance, a person who nonetheless walks on such paths despite the indicators does so at his own risk. In this case the defendant neither cleared the liquid nor indicated its existence with appropriate signs. Despite the natural consequence of its existence on a person using ordinary case who might by chance step on it, and slip, still defendant failed to take the necessary precaution which might be expected from a reasonably prudent man in the position of said defendant. As such, defendant, acting through its employees, should be held liable for its negligence which caused injury to the plaintiff and to her son. (3)
PLAINTIFF EXERCISED ORDINARY CARE AS EXPECTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party contributing as a 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. 3 Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. 4 Thus, the plaintiff’s assumed negligence having been broken by an efficient intervening cause, plaintiff could not be deemed to have contributed to the injury for which damages are being claimed. (4) 2
PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPENSATED
Id. National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Noble Cosianan, GR No. 165967, November 27, 2008, 572SCRA71. 4 Ramos vs. COL Realty Corp., GR No. 184905, August 26, 2009, 597SCRA526. Rules of Court, Rule 131, SCC 3(id). 3
FOR ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that whoever 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 one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible”. Owners and managers of an establishement 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. 5 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. 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’ 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. This being the case, plaintiff is entitled to compensation for actual damages.
In addition, plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of moral damages for the emotional pain the defendants’ negligence has brought her and her son. In this regard, plaintiff seeks payment of moral damages to alleviate their suffering and anguish in an amount commensurate to the damage caused. RELIEF WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered by this Honorable Court ordering the defendant to pay: (1) Actual damages in the amount of P22,840.00; (2) Moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00; and (3) Costs of suit. Other reliefs as may be just and equitable are likewise prayed for. Quezon City, Philippines, November 27, 2011.
Atty. Rex Beltran Counsel for the plaintiff 123 Road I, Quezon City IBP No. 1234567; 01/01/11-Manila 5
Art. 2180, New Civil Code.
PTR no. 1234567;01/0111- Manila Roll No. 12345; 05/05/05 MCL E No. 001234;09/09/09 The Branch Clerk of Court RTC, Branch 1 Quezon City Greetings: Please submit the foregoing Memorandum for the Court’s consideration.
(Sgd. Atty. Rex Beltran) Copy Furnished: Atty. Emil Sunga Counsel for the Defendant
