Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Region
Branch ___, Quezon City
Plaintiff, For Damages
- versus -
GLORIA SUPERMART, INC.
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Jonna Bueno (hereinafter “Jonna”) filed the present action for damages against Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc. (hereinafter “Gloria Supermart”). Jonna attributes the injuries suffered by her minor son to Gloria Supermart’s gross negligence in failing to make its premises safe for customers, thereby making it liable under Art. 2176 and Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Defendant maintain that whatever injuries and expenses that were incurred by the Bueno family can be attributed to Jonna’s failure to supervise her child.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
1. On May 11, 2010, Jonna and her minor child, 5-year old Ricky, went to Gloria Supermart at around 10 a.m. in order to shop for groceries.
2. While negotiating the aisles in the supermarket, Ricky’s attention was captured by a small red ball that was rolling on the floor. Being but a child of tender years, possessed of the immature disposition of individuals of that age, it was no surprise that Ricky chased after the ball down the aisle and away from Jonna.
3. It was at this point that Ricky suddenly slipped and fell because he had stepped on a wet section of the aisle. Liquid syrup had seeped out from a bottle located on a nearby shelf and had formed a puddle on the floor.
4. Jonna immediately rushed to her son’s side. Ricky was crying in pain and pointing to his right wrist.
5. Jonna called for help as there were no nearby store clerks. Rene Cstro (hereinafter “Rene”), the supermarket supervisor eventually came over from another aisle in order to help out.
6. There were no signs and devices that would warn shoppers that an area of the floor was wet. There were no nearby cleaners or janitors wiping up the liquid. In fact, the only nearby Gloria Supermart personnel was Rene in the next aisle and even he seemed unaware that a hazard existed on the other side of the shelves.
7. With the aid of Rene, Jonna managed to bring her child to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital where Ricky was attended to by Dr. John Lim. Ricky was subjected to an x-ray and it was discovered that surgery was necessary in order to restore the position of a fractured bone in his right wrist.
8. Said surgery in fact took place and Ricky was thereafter required to stay overnight at the hospital for purposes of pain management and care. He was discharged the following day.
9. Ricky recovered the full use of his hand only after a period of 6 weeks. In that span of time, he moved with discomfort and difficulty, unable to use his hands.
10. Since the date of Ricky’s injury and even during his recuperation period, Jonna suffered the mental anguish, fright and serious anxiety of a mother who was confronted with the injury of a beloved child.
11. In addition to the physical suffering suffered by Ricky and the mental and emotional strain on Jonna, they were further aggrieved because they had to spend P22,840.00 in doctor’s fees, hospitalization expenses, and medicine, as evidenced by receipts, marked as ANNEX ____.
12. On the other hand, Gloria Supermart, through Rene, claims that it exercised proper diligence in making the premises safe and that ultimately Jonna was the one who failed to supervise Ricky. It denied liability for all damages.
ISSUES
Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are presented for discussion:
1. Whether or not Gloria Supermart may be held liable for the commission of a quasi delict under Art. 2176 and Art, 2180 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether or not Gloria Supermart may be held liable for damages.
ARGUMENTS
I. Gloria Supermart is liable for the commission of a quasi delict that was the proximate cause of Ricky’s injuries.
A. The proximate cause of the injuries that Ricky suffered was the negligence of Gloria Supermart’s employees.
1. Art. 2176 provides that “whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for damage done.” In the case of Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio (G.R. No. 150920, Nov. 25, 2005), the Supreme Court stated that “in order to establish a quasi-delict case under this provision, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and damages incurred.” (supra)
2. All three conditions obtain in the present case.
3. It is undisputed that Ricky broke his wrist when he slipped and fell on a puddle of liquid syrup that was on the floor of Gloria Supermart’s premises. It was the presence of this syrup that was the proximate cause of Ricky’s injury. Proximate cause is defined
as “that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.” (Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, Aug. 28, 2009). It is submitted that Ricky would not have fallen and broke his wrist if he had not slipped on the syrup.
4. The question now is, is his act of slipping on the syrup an accident or is the syrup’s presence on the floor an act of negligence that may be attributed to Gloria Supermart’s employees? If the proximate cause was an accident, clearly no liability can attach to Gloria Supremart. On the other hand, if the proximate cause is the latter’s negligence, it may properly held liable under the provisions of the Civil Code.
5. An accident pertains “to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. On the other hand, 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 the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do.” (Jarco Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, Dec. 21, 1999)
6. Applying the law to the present case, it is clear that Ricky’s injury was not caused by accident. As earlier mentioned, Ricky broke his wrist because he slipped and fell due to liquid syrup that was seeping from a bottle located on the supermarket shelves. Clearly, the liquid should not have been on the floor as common sense would indicate that it posed a threat to even the most careful of individuals walking past. Anybody could have slipped and fallen on the syrup.
7. The mere presence of the syrup on the floor already negates Gloria Supermart’s claim that it exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe. Based on its past experience as admitted by Rene, similar accidents have previously occurred. Thus, it could have easily foreseen that such an accident could happen again. Failure to take the proper precautions in guarding against such a mishap is an act of negligence on the part of Gloria Supermart’s employees.
8. Specifically, Rene, as store supervisor, could have been more vigilant in patrolling the aisles for spills or the presence of similar hazards. He failed the test for determining whether a person is negligent that was laid out by the Supreme Court in the case of Philippine National Construction v. CA (G.R. No. 159270, Aug. 22, 2005). The test in that case requires a person to act as a prudent man in a similar position and fails to take the proper precautions against foreseeable harm. He has already had 5 years of experience in handling the incidents of the supermarket and yet he did nothing.
9. Moreover, signs and warning devices which would inform shoppers that a hazard was present were noticeably absent. This oversight evidences even the want of ordinary care on the part of Rene and the other supermarket employees.
10. Rene and the other employees’ negligence in patrolling the aisles and placing proper warning signs/devices is further supported by the fact that, as earlier mentioned: 1) similar accidents often happen, and 2) they knew that children often accompany their parents to the supermarket. Having advance notice of these facts, they cannot now claim that Ricky’s injury was an unforeseeable accident.
B. Gloria Supermart may be held liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
11. Art. 2180 provides that “the obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.” Said article further provides that “the 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.
12. Applying the foregoing to the present case, it is clear that Rene and other employees on duty that day were at that time in the service of Gloria Supermart, performing their regular functions and duties.
13. In order to escape liability for its employees’ negligent acts, Gloria Supermart must show that it observed “the diligence of a a good father of the family” to prevent the damage.
14. Unfortunately, Gloria Supermart has failed to show that it exercised such degree of diligence in supervising Rene and the other employees. The testimonies on record do not show that it was store policy to take extra precautions against spills and other mishaps which occur in the ordinary course of a supermarket business. The testimonies on record also indicate an absence of institutional concern for the safety and well being of children that they knew often accompanied their parents in the store. In fact, Rene testified that children were the sole responsibility of their parents. While this may be true to a certain extent, considering that Art. 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. The prevention and removal of hazards like the syrup on the floor is a duty that falls squarely within its area of responsibility. Moreover, children cannot be held to the same exacting standards of diligence that are attributed to an adult. Children of tender years like Ricky, are obviously at greater risk from hazards. Despite Gloria Supermart’s knowledge and awareness of children’s presence on its premises, it did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in making sure that it took extra care to supervise and instruct its employees in minimizing the risk.
15. All told, it is evident that all the conditions of a quasi delict obtain in the present case: Ricky suffered an injury which in the ordinary course of events would not have happened had it not been for the negligence of Gloria Supermart’s employees in preventing the occurrence of spillages and other ordinary store incidents and subsequently, in not promptly cleaning up the spilled liquid syrup and in not placing signs and other warning devices. Gloria Supermart itself was liable for the acts of its employees because it failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in making sure that it was company policy to take precautions against foreseeable accidents, including those that would involve children. Assuming there was such a policy it was negligent in supervising its employees to ensure that they adhered to such standards and policies.
II. Gloria Supermart is liable for the payment of damages.
1. Art. 20 of the Civil Code provides that “every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.” Moreover, Art. 2176 also obliges the party responsible for the quasi delict to pay for the
damage done. Here, the negligence of Gloria Supermart has been clearly established. Hence, it cannot escape liability for the payment of damages.
A. Gloria Supermart is liable for the payment of actual damages.
2. “Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensability for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.” (Art. 2199, Civil Code)
3. Jonna incurred P22,840 in doctor’s fees, hospitalization expenses and medicine, which are properly documented by receipts (ANNEX “A”). These expenses would not have been incurred had the accident not happened as a result of Gloria Supermart’s negligence in making sure that its premises were safe and secure.
B. Gloria Supermart is liable for the payment of moral damages.
4. Moral damages include “physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.” (Art. 2217, Civil Code) The article further provides that “though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.” (supra)
5. The facts bear out the claim that Jonna suffered mental anguish, fright and serious anxiety when she saw her son injured and in pain. Her emotional and mental state is directly connected with the fact that her son slipped, fell and broke his wrist due to the negligence of Gloria Supermart and its employees.
6. A mother is naturally concerned over the health and well being of her child. Hence, one can only imagine the suffering that she had to go through when she saw her child slip and fall, undergo surgery and continue to suffer pain and discomfort for 6 weeks after he was discharged from the hospital.
7. Ricky himself had to endure a significant amount of physical suffering as a result of his broken wrist. Moral damages can also be recovered for such injuries suffered as a consequence of quasi delict because the law (Art. 2219, Civil Code) treats it as an analogous circumstance to those instances in Art. 2217 for which moral damages may be properly claimed.
8. Note that in addition to the pain he suffered on the day of the injury, such pain lasted even up to 6 weeks after the surgery, during which time, he had limited range of movement in his hands and was also forced to deal with a significant amount of discomfort.
C. Even assuming there was also negligence on the part of Jonna, such was only contributory and will not negate the award of damages.
9. The proximate cause of Ricky’s injury and the Bueno family’s subsequent suffering is still Gloria Supermart’s negligence.
10. Hence, Gloria Supermart should still be primarily liable for the payment of damages.
11. Assuming Jonna should have taken greater care in looking after Ricky, this still does not make her negligence the proximate cause because an accident would still not necessarily have occurred without the efficient intervening cause of the liquid on the floor.
12. Contributory negligence, if there is any, will only serve to reduce the damages that may be recovered by Jonna.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant by:
1) FINDING Gloria Supermart liable for the commission of negligent acts under Art. 2176 & 2180 when it failed to maintain safe premises for its customers; causing injury to Ricky.
2) ORDERING Gloria Supermart to pay both actual damages of P22,840, and moral damages in an amount this Honorable Court finds just and reasonable under the circumstances.
Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, November 27, 2011.
(Sgd.) ATTY. REX BELTRAN
Counsel for Plaintiff
Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:
Copy furnished:ATTY EMIL SUNGA
Counsel for Defendant
EXPLANATION
In view of time and manpower restrictions, the above Memorandum was served via registered mail as personal service could not be availed of without causing undue hardship to plaintiff.
(Sgd.) ATTY. REX BELTRAN
Counsel for Palintiff
No comments:
Post a Comment