Joan Cruz V Royal Supermart Plaintiff Position Paper

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Region
Quezon City
JOAN CRUZ
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 221100
For: Action for Damages
ROYAL SUPERMART, INC.
Defendant
x----------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff Joan Cruz, by counsel, respectfully submits this
memorandum as follows:
Statement of the Case

1. Plaintiff JOAN CRUZ (“Ms. Cruz) instituted this action for
damages in lieu of the medical expenses and emotional anguish she incurred
for the physical injuries of her son (“Biboy”), amounting to 500,000 PHP
against Royal Supermart Inc.
Statement of the Facts

2. On May 11, 2011, Ms. Cruz and her 5-year old son, Biboy, were
shopping at Royal Supermart. Joan said that the reason why her son fell on
the aisle’s wet floor is due to the out of somewhere ball that caught the
attention of Biboy and the incaution wet floor area of the grocery section.
3. When young Biboy saw the ball, he followed it and

unconsciously slipped because of the spilled liquid on the floor. Biboy then
shrieked from pain in his right wrist which he used to stop his fall. Biboy was
brought to Philippine Orthopedic Hospital for medical treatment and
diagnosis.
4. Biboy stayed overnight at the medical facility and recovered after
6 weeks, attended by Dr. Lim. The total expenses incurred by Joan and her
husband is approximately 27,840 PHP covering all the medical expenses and
new toys to distract Biboy from the pain he suffered.
Joan Cruz v. Royal Supermart
Trial Memorandum for the Plaintiff
GROUP 2-UPPERCLASSMEN
Issues
The issues to be resolved are the following:
I. Whether or not Royal Supermart is liable for damages for Biboy’s physical
injuries.
II. Whether or not the management and employees of Royal Supermart

displayed gross negligence in ensuring the safety of their customers within
their premises.
III. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.
Discussions
Royal Supermarket is liable for damages for Biboy’s physical injuries.
5. Article 2180 of the New Civil Code provides that 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.1 This
provisions entails that the owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for the damages which are caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed and
while on the performance of their functions.
6. Furthermore, Article 2179 of the New Civil Code provides the

definition of a quasi-delict 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.2 Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict.
__________________
1
The New Civil Code, Title XVII, Ch. 2.
2
Ibid.
7. In the case at bar, Royal Supermart’s personnel are negligent

enough to ensure that their premise is well cleaned and safe. In fact, this was
revealed in Ms. Cruz's testimony that there were no supermarket cleaner
nearby to clean the puddle.3 There were also no supermart grocery clerk
around to guide their customers. Thus, Royal Supermarket should be held
liable for damages.4
II
The management and employees of Royal Supermart displayed gross

negligence in ensuring the safety of their customers within their
premise.
8. In Jarco Marketing Corporation v Court of Appeals,5 the Court

reiterated the classic statement of what negligence is. It states that negligence
is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would
do or doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
As. Ms. Cruz contends in the case at bar, Royal Supermarket management and
staff must be held responsible for negligence because they failed to set a
caution sign for the carelessly spilled liquids.
9. Also, in Article 694 of the New Civil Code nuisance is defined
as an act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which injures or endangers the health or safety of others.6 Here,
the indicator of negligence is the defendant's maintenance of nuisance.
10. In, Hidalgo Enterprises Inc v Balandan7, attractive nuisances
were defined as a dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character
likely to attract children in play. In this case, Ms. Cruz could have not known
that a ball would go rolling which caused Biboy to run after it. Children are
hyper and prone to destructions. Royal Supermart must have placed enough
measures to secure all persons inside their store and in order for them to stay
away from jeopardies.
___________________
3
TSN, June 7, 2011, 2.
4
Ibid.
5
Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 129792,
December 21, 1999.
6
The New Civil Code, Title VIII.
7
Hidalgo Enterprises Inc. v. Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952.
11. The testimony of Ms. Cruz has in fact established how the
events have unfolded and thereby strengthening the existence of an attractive
nuisance in the Royal Supermart as provided in the direct examination of
plaintiff’s witness as follows:8
Q: Do you remember anything unusual that happened while you and

Biboy were picking up groceries at the shelves?
A: Yes, a small ball rolled along the aisle and Biboy ran after it.
Q: Was he able to catch the ball?
A: No. Although Biboy had gone some distance down from where I
stood, I saw him slip with a heavy bang on the wet section of the aisle.
Q: What happened to him after he slipped?
A: He shrieked from pain in his right wrist which he used to stop his
fall.
Thus, the ball is to be considered as an attractive nuisance since if it weren't

for the ball rolling, it would not have caught Biboy's attention and tempt him
to follow it at any cost.
III
Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.
12. According to Article 2199 of the New Civil Code9, except as
provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation
only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. In the case at
bar, plaintiff has duly proven the expenses she incurred from paying her son's
medical bills. She have all the receipts from the hospital and other expenses
spent to recover Biboy’s health. Biboy is her only son and it could be observed
in her testimony the extreme fear she’s feeling for the thought of losing him.
Taking the emotional damage cost from the Article 2217 of the New Civil
Code which states that, mental anguish, fright and serious anxiety may be used
as basis for plaintiff's moral damages.10
______________________
8
TSN, June 7, 2011, 1,2.
9
The New Civil Code, Title XVIII, Ch. 2.
10
Ibid, Ch. 3.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Joan Cruz, respectfully prays the Court to:
1.) Held Royal Supermart liable for actual damages resulted from
Biboy’s physical injuries;
2.) Grant this petition to be meritorious;
3.) Entitle the plaintiff for actual and moral dages of 500,000 PHP.
MABASA RIVERA TABAR & STO.

DOMINGO
Counsel for Plaintiff
XH 207-208, Xavier University,
Corrales Ave., Cagayan de Oro City
Tel. No. (088) 853.9800; Fax No. (088)853.9801
Email Address: [email protected]
By:
KRISTINE NOVA ROBERTS A. MABASA

PTR No. 1234567; 01-01-2017; Cagayan De
Oro City
IBP Lifetime No. 100001; 01-01-2017;
Cagayan De Oro
Roll No. 20001; 11-23-16
MCLE Compliance III No. 0009876; 12-23-16
JOANNE RIVERA
PTR No. 1234568; 01-01-2017; Cagayan De
Oro City
IBP Lifetime No. 100002; 01-01-2017;
Cagayan De Oro
Roll No. 20002; 11-23-16
THEA TABAR
PTR No. 1234569; 01-01-2017; Cagayan De
Oro City
IBP Lifetime No. 100003; 01-01-2017;
Cagayan De Oro
Roll No. 20003; 11-23-16
JASON STO. DOMINGO

PTR No. 1234570; 01-01-2017; Cagayan De
Oro City
IBP Lifetime No. 100004; 01-01-2017;
Cagayan De Oro
Roll No. 20004; 11-23-16

Joan Cruz V Royal Supermart Plaintiff Position Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joan Cruz V Royal Supermart Plaintiff Position Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joan Cruz V Royal Supermart Plaintiff Position Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

Statement of the Case

Statement of the Facts

3. When young Biboy saw the ball, he followed it and

The issues to be resolved are the following:

II. Whether or not the management and employees of Royal Supermart

III. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.

Royal Supermarket is liable for damages for Biboy’s physical injuries.

6. Furthermore, Article 2179 of the New Civil Code provides the

7. In the case at bar, Royal Supermart’s personnel are negligent

The management and employees of Royal Supermart displayed gross

8. In Jarco Marketing Corporation v Court of Appeals,5 the Court

Q: Do you remember anything unusual that happened while you and

Thus, the ball is to be considered as an attractive nuisance since if it weren't

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Joan Cruz, respectfully prays the Court to:

2.) Grant this petition to be meritorious;

MABASA RIVERA TABAR & STO.

KRISTINE NOVA ROBERTS A. MABASA

JASON STO. DOMINGO

You might also like