MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully submits this Memorandum to support her cause of action and alleges:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a case of quasi-delict with damages for the injuries sustained by a minor due to an accident at the defendant’s supermarket on May 11, 2010.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS On direct examination, the plaintiff testified on the following, to wit: 1. Plaintiff is Jonna Bueno, 35 years old, married, and a resident of 89 Little Baguio St., San Juan City, Metro Manila; 2. She is an accountant by profession; 3. On May 11, 2010 at 10:00 AM, plaintiff with her son Ricky, a 5 year old boy, went to Gloria Supermart, Inc., to buy some groceries; 4. While picking some groceries, a small ball rolled along the aisle that caught the attention of Ricky who ran after the ball to catch it; 5. Upon trying to catch the ball, plaintiff saw Ricky slipped with a heavy bang on the wet section of the aisle; 6. Plaintiff immediately came to his rescue to help him as he shrieked from pain in his wrist which he used to stop his fall; 7. Plaintiff testified that the cause of Ricky’s fall was due to the puddle of liquid on the floor that seeped out from a leaking bottle in a nearby shelf; 8. She testified further that there was no supermarket cleaner around during that time and no warning sign had been placed in the area; 9. Furthermore, she heard someone shout, Hoy, bata ingat! May basa diyan!; 10. Plaintiff asked a store clerk to help her carry Ricky for her to bring him to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital;

He saw that couples of bottles of syrup in plastic containers. He testified that on May 10. Defendant’s witness is Rene Castro. 14. 18. 000. Upon cross-examination. INC. 2010. on direct examination and on behalf of Gloria Supermart. Ricky was able to recover only after six (6) weeks from the accident. defendant’s witness stated the following: 20. There were already accidents resulting in injury in the supermart before as hundreds of people are shopping in the store.00 for the toys she bought for Ricky to distract him from the pain he suffered. 840. IS GLORIA SUPERMART. except one glass bottle was broken and spilled part of its contents on the floor. 23. and works in the store for five (5) years. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE/S 1. 16. He did not actually see the accident when it happened. NEGLIGENT IN MAINTAINING ITS STORE PREMISES TO MAKE IT SAFE FOR ITS CUSTOMERS? . He speculated that Ricky must have been the one who bumped into the shelf that caused the glass container to break as accordingly inferred from Ricky’s position. He is a supervisor of Gloria Supermart. their witness testified on the following: 15. Inc. 21.00 for doctor’s fee..G. hospitalization and medicine as shown by her receipts. That her son Ricky was operated in his right wrist to restore the position of a fractured bone as shown by the X-ray picture.. 17. She also spent P5. Sampaloc. Inc. 22.. Cruz. the Supermart management did not bother to take pictures of the puddle on the floor and the bottles of syrup that was the cause of Ricky’s accident. Moreover. There were even cases of shoplifting in the store. 55 years old and a resident of 12 V.11. 13. 12. That plaintiff incurred P22. Manila. 19. he heard a commotion and found out that Ricky was lying on the floor in pain. During the accident of Ricky.

Gloria Supermart. 1. or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. 129792. the supermart has but failed to do its responsibility through its personnel to act reasonably as a prudent man would do to maintain its premises safe from accident. would do. That ball must have come from the store which is expected to be seeling as it caters the general needs of its customers. In the case of a ball. 1999. Dec. (Jarco marketing Corporation v Court of Appeals. G. it is very clear that defendant Gloria Supermart is negligent and did not observe due diligence in maintaining its store safe and free from possible accidents as shown by the absence of maintenance personnel who must see to it. “One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play.3 The failure of the store personnel to check these things regularly constitutes negligence on their part. Inc. from time to time.2.4 Applying the said jurisprudence. 21.2 The supermart was also negligent in not placing a warning sign to warn customers in areas where items are in liquid form as there are tendencies that these items may seep or break. The ball rolling constitutes an attractive nuisance that will certainly catch the attention of a child. “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man. No.5 Aggravating the circumstances was the rolling of the ball that got the attention of Ricky to ran after it. that there are wet areas in the floor which might cause customers from slipping off. 1. and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting .. guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs.1 Based on the facts presented. although not hazardous if properly served. is negligent by not observing due diligence to keep their store safe from possible accidents of its customers. 1. IS THE SUPERMART LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES FOR THE INJURY SUSTAINED BY RICKY’S ACCIDENT? ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION 1. 321 SCRA 375)” 1. 1. The store management then should have also checked its goods and have them secured especially if they are prone to accidents.R. it is not only hazardous to children but also to adults especially the aged persons who might stepped on it.

June 13.9 It could therefore be dedused from that circumstances that the supermart is negligent because someone had already observed the wet floor to be accident prone. willfully or negligently causes damage to another. injury and expenses should the supermart been not negligent in observing due diligence to check their premises. that statement only proves that indeed there was already a wet area in the store where the boy slipped of which regates the defendant’s witness that it was Ricky who must have bumped off the bottles causing one of them to break.thereto. bata. is liable to a child of tender age/years who is injured thereby. “Hoy. as inunciated by Art. (Hidalgo Enterprises. Inc. ingat! May basa diyan!” should not have striken out instead appreciated as it could not be considered hearsay because it was directly heard by the plaintiff herself and not taken from other person.6 The testimony of the plaintiff that she heard someone shouting. contrary to law. 1952. et al. the Supermart is liable to pay damages plus the expenses incurred during the medication of Ricky because there should have been no such damage. Such fault or negligence.1 The accident should not have happened without the fault and negligence of the supermart and its employees as presented above.3 In the instant case. The supermart is liable to pay damages for the injury sustained by Ricky’s accident.8 In the case at bar. 20. 1. if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties. New Civil Code)” 2. 1. which states that: .” 1. is obliged to pay for the damage done.7 That declaration must be appreciated as part of resgestal as it was made spontaneously that is while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof.2 This is supported by Article 2176 which states that: “Whoever by act or omission causes damge to another. there being fault or negligence. The law provides that: “Every person who. 91 Phil. 2. 2.. vs. even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.” 2. L-3422. may be given in evidence. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provision of this chapter. shall indemnity the latter for the same (Art. 2180. 488). 1. Balandan.

2. fright and serious anxiety experienced by the plaintiff.00. Cost of litigation Other measures of reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Inc. Moral damages for the physical suffering of the victim and mental anguish. (Sgd. it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court will decide in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant.. ________dated _____ PTR No. WHEREFORE. REX BELTRAN Counsel for the Plaintiff Manila City I. _______dated ______ MCLE No. Exemplary or corrective damages. 3.P. 2. 4. the following reliefs: 1.4 Applying this provision of law to the instant case.) ATTY. The owner or employer is vicariously liable with his employees to pay damages to the plaintiff for the injuries she sustained. Gloria Supermart. Payment of actual or compensatory damages in the amount of P27. ______dated _____ . 840.B.“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 responsiblexxx. _______dated_____ Roll No. The owner’s 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 in the occasion of their functions. it is then the liability of the owner of Gloria Supermart and his store employees who are neglect of their duties to observe due diligence. No.