You are on page 1of 13

NOTE: this is a memorandum submitted as a requirement during our

revalida in Evidence under Atty. Rodolfo Salalima.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICAL REGION
Makati City, Branch 08
TOM CRUZ,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 1234
For: Claim for
Damages

-versusBRAD FEET, RYAN GOSLEE,
CHRISTIAN VEIL, and HENRY
KABIL
Defendants.
x---------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel.
Unto this Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully submit and
present this Memorandum in the above-title case and aver that:
I.

THE PARTIES

1. That Plaintiff Tom Cruz is of legal age, widower, and a resident of
Unit 008, 8/F Cityland Pasong Tamo Towers, 2210 Don Chino Roces
Avenue, Makati City, where she may served with legal processes and
notices issued by this Honorable Court;
2. That defendant Brad Feet is of legal age, married, owner and operator
of Truckformers Hauling Services and residing on Lot 2 Block 6
Phase 2, Palmera homes, Muntinlupa City, and may be served with
legal processes and other judicial notices thereto.
3. That Defendant Ryan Goslee is of legal age, married, employee of
Brad Feet and residing on #45 Pusong-Bato street, Makabagong
Anghit Village, Makati City, and may be served with legal processes
and other judicial notices thereto.

2013. preliminary conference was held in the presence of the plaintiff. now deceased. 2014. Jabar. 45. married. and husband of the victim Maria Cruz. 3. That Defendant Christian Veil is of legal age. II. both plaintiff and defendants filed their respective pre-trial briefs as ordered by the Honorable Court. ABC . 2014. 2. Quezon City. 6. defendant received summons issued by the Honorable Court to file an answer. 8. Logan Cruz. a widow. and Bruce Cruz. 7. That Defendant Henry Kabil is of legal age. the Honorable Court ordered the parties to file their pre-trial briefs 15 days from receipt of notice of pre-trial. On February 10. preliminary conference was set. 53 years old. 5. 18. On December 15. On December 27. owner of Mazda Taxi and residing on Lot 44 Blk 11 Whisper Wings Street. On November 25. the case is deemed submitted for decision. a collision occurred between a gravel and sand truck. Quezon City. Hence. Plaintiff is Tom Cruz. Brgy. otherwise. and may be served with legal processes and other judicial notices thereto. 2.4. 2013. defendant filed his answer dated December 01. defendant. On January 10. 4. married. the Honorable Court ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda fifteen days (15) days from notice. employee of Henry Kabil and residing on Lot 67 Blk 88 PH Care street Brgy Putok. On December 03. as per verification by the Honorable Court of the pre-trial briefs. plaintiff filed a Complaint for Claim for Damages against herein defendant. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. 15. and their respective counsels. with Plate No. the filing of the instant Memorandum III. 5. and may be served with legal processes and other judicial notices thereto. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. 2013. 2013. That at about 5:00 in the morning of April 20. On November 27. 2013. and father of two boys. Accordingly. both deceased. 2013. after presentation of evidences on the said trial date. 2013 against the plaintiff.

ripping off the said wall from the driver’s seat to the rear seat. the two vehicles sideswiped each other at each other’s left side and after which. 3. the cargo truck and the passenger taxi was approaching each other. DEF 456 along the Senator Gil J. but the plaintiff did not agree with the amount of settlement offered by the defendants. That due to the impact. After such receipt. an affidavit of quitclaim was presented to him and by means of intimidation and undue influence. 2013. That during the incident. Makati City. passengers of the taxi were thrown out and died as a result of the injuries they sustained. and a Mazda passenger taxi with Motor No. That immediately before the collision. ISSUES . That the front left side portion of the body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall of the passenger taxi. plaintiff was forced to take it due to his sorrow and lack of choice.000 php where in fact the loss of the plaintiff was more than the amount offered. IV. he was forced to sign the same. Puyat Avenue. That despite unrelenting refusal of the plaintiff to the offer. Makati. That while the taxi was in the process of overtaking a hand truck. Conversely. Puyat Avenue. Metro Manila. the cargo truck was driven by defendant Brad Feet and owned by defendant Ryan Goslee. 5.123. the defendants frequently visited the house of the plaintiff to convince him to accept the offer. 9. Philippines. That the plaintiff never agreed to the offer of the defendants. That the plaintiff demanded from the defendants indemnification for all the losses and damages sustained by reason of the death of his wife and 2 sons. coming from the opposite directions of Senator Gil J. The defendants set a meeting with the plaintiff at Burgeran Makinarya along Kropek Highway. 7. The amount offered by the defendants embodied in the agreement was only 800. That the meeting was held for the purpose of amicably settling the claims between the parties. 4. Quezon City and held on July 25. 8. A1234 and Plate No. the truck skidded towards the other side of the road and hitting a post. 6. while the passenger taxi was driven by defendant Christian Veil and owned by defendant Henry Kabil.

2. negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man. Liability of Defendants A. there being fault or negligence.1. whereby such other person suffers injury. Whether or not the liability of the defendants are joint and severally. for the protection of the interest of another person. The case further compared negligence from an accident. It is "a fortuitous circumstance. Whether or not the averred compromise agreement and affidavit of quitclaim by the defendants is valid 3.000php V. or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. event or . guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs. is obliged to pay for the damage done. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. Whether or not the plaintiff has a claim against defendants despite receipt of indemnification amounting to 800. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs for the loss suffered by him from the death of his wife and two sons. The compromise agreement and affidavit of quitclaim are void. Negligence is "the failure to observe. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. 3. that degree of care. VI.1 Nature and Definition The primary legal basis for private respondent's cause of action is Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict — Art. The plaintiff has a valid and existing cause of action for claim of damages against the plaintiff. DISCUSSION A. Such fault or negligence. would do. ARGUMENTS 1. (1902a) Negligence is defined in the case of Jarco Marketing Corporation vs CA. precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. 2176. 2.

Common carriers. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. Article 1732 and 1733 of the Civil Code provides: Art. driver Brad Feet attempted to overtake the sand and gravel truck despite knowledge that they were reaching a sharp curve along Gil Puyat Avenue. firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both. evidentlly show gross negligence of both defendants. in this case the common carrier. pursuant to the position of the plaintiff. Common carriers are persons. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. corporations. discussed that. the action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor. there is an implied contract of carriage once a person is regarded as passenger of a common carrier.happening. whereas in breach of contract. or air. failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination. while both vehicles were driven by Brad Feet and Christian Veil. As to the case of Mazda passenger taxi. water. This provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the burden of proof. 1733 and 1755 of the Code. Brad Feet as its driver is negligent to the extent of failure to observe that extraordinary diligence required of a public vehicle and a common carrier. In transportation. an event happening without any human agency. an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens. 1732. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. The facts provide that a collision occurred between a gravel and sand truck and a Mazda passenger taxi. by land. In fact. 2000). In the case of Calalas vs Court of Appeals (332 SCRA 356. the negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action. offering their services to the public. Art. or if happening wholly or partly through human agency. for compensation." The facts of this case. in quasi-delict. 1733. In case of death or injuries to passengers. Art. the point where the incident occurred was shown through the . As continuously contemplated by the plaintiff and in the complaint. according to all the circumstances of each case.

the court said.R. he is also negligent for his failure to signal the passenger taxi behind him that he is also about to overtake the motor vehicle in front of him. The responsibility treated in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. In fact. L-21512. although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is independent. petitioners' negligence was the last. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. failed to exercise that diligence required of a common carrier. for Custodio was on the running board of the carrier's bus sometime before petitioners' truck came from the . As to the case of Christian Veil as driver of the sand and gravel truck. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. both acts of negligence are the proximate cause of the death of Agripino Custodio. in point of time. it is basic that an ordinary driver should know that overtaking on a sharp curve is strictly prohibited. it implies that the passenger taxi was running in speed while traversing such sharp curve. And relying on the scratches on the road. theretofore. It is not disputed that all defendants admitted their negligence. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The question lies now on the liability of the defendants. The employer-owners of said driver and vehicles are likewise liable. to its execution.presentation of picture during the trial. A. 2180. the negligence of the first two (2) would not have produced this result without the negligence of petitioners' herein. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. we adhere with the ruling in the case of Sabido vs Custudio (G. Driver Brad Feet.2 Liability As to what extent is their liabilites are. of the negligence of the truck driver and its owner. No. Art. 1966) In the case. he did not do so. It shows that the occurrence causing the death of victims happened only 15 meters away from a sharp curve. Besides. What is more.

. As a contract. 946. or extrajudicial. The rule is. Jur. while immediately binding between the parties upon its execution. a compromise is either judicial. either is responsible for the whole injury. Plaintiff now maintain: (1) that the death of was due exclusively to the negligence of the carriers owner and its driver. a compromise is a contract whereby the parties. are. in combination. or solidary. are. it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury. 947. the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury." (38 Am. that. (3) that defendants are solidarily liable B. or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tort-feasor. whereas that of the former springs from a quasidelict. petitioners' truck had the last clear chance. avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. and Veil. a compromise is perfected by mutual consent. in this sense. although the defendants Feet. is not executory until it is approved by the court and . if the objective is to avoid a litigation. where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons.1 Nature and Definition Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code. Validity of Compromise Settlement and Affidavit of Quitclaim B. However. . hence the liability of the defendants is joint and severally.opposite direction. however. by making reciprocal concessions. even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury.) The plaintiff and counsel find similarity of the case Sabido vs Custudion with the present case. were acting independently of each other. even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury. so that. if the objective is to put an end to a pending litigation. in combination. Further. either is responsible for the whole injury. There was concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons. because the latter's liability arises from a breach of contract. a judicial compromise. (2) that defendants were guilty of negligence in connection with the matter under consideration. "According to the great weight of authority. . the direct and proximate cause of the death of the wife of plaintiff and his two sons. although acting independently of each other. Petitioners contend that they should not be held solidarily liable with the carrier and its driver. Accordingly.

or public policy. Prior to the filing of the present case. No. it is obvious that it was not voluntarily entered into because such agreement was prepared by the defendants without asking the plaintiff of his desired terms. morals. In the present case. public policy and public order. July 6. avoid litigation. first. 174114. No. (DMG Industries. 526 SCRA 682. good customs. Inc. July 6. v. even if the said defendants did not asked plaintiff of his desired amount for settlement. or public policy. provided that they are not contrary to law. the agreement must be entered into by the parties VOLUNTARILY. or put an end to one already commenced. 2007. G. clauses. v. Moreover. morals. 2013) Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that contracting parties may establish such stipulations.reduced to a judgment. DMG Industries. Inc. Philippine American Investments Corporations. No. Secondly. and conditions. 68) The attempt to amicably settle between the parties in this case is an extrajudicial compromise.000php is suffidient to indemnify the losses suffered by plaintiff. G.R. 178312. It was even severed by the exertion of force by the defendants to compel plaintiff accept said offer. good customs. The validity of a compromise is dependent upon its compliance with the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law.R. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions. the plaintiff admits that there was an offer from defendants to amicably settle among themselves to prevent litigation. practice in courts of law and administrative tribunals. However. the terms of the agreement must be REASONABLE. the terms and conditions of a compromise must not be contrary to law. (Landbank of the Philippines vs. January 30. the plaintiff opened it up . public order.R. public order. the plaintiff stands that the compromise agreement presented by the defendants is nothing but a mere scrap of paper hence void. the defendants assumed that the offer of 800. 174114. The law provides that a valid extrajudicial compromise agreement. Further. the plaintiff never accepted the offer due to insufficiency. morals. Heirs of Spouses Jorja Rigor Soriano and Magin Soriano. and contrary to law. Philippine American Investments Corporations. 2007. (Article 2028 of the Civil Code. Though plaintiff was very much willing to enter into settlement. 68) It is an accepted. even desirable and encouraged. good customs. terms. as they may deem convenient. Also. G. 526 SCRA 682.

Article 2041 of the same code states that if one of the parties fail or refuses to abide by the compromise. intimidation. In the end. undue influence. A compromise in which there is mistake. or falsity of documents. However. The life of the most important person in which he can never claim from the defendants. The desire of plaintiff to repudiate said agreement has a valid ground and reason in law. violence. Plaintiff now maintain: (1)The compromise agreement and affidavit of quitclaim was entered into involuntarily hence . Thus.000 php. Plaintiff was willing to receive a claim of 3 million even the total amount of the damages and his loss was way above 5 million pesos. he signed the same due to the exertion of force. the plaintiff was forced to take it due lack of choice. but defendants were persistent.during the December 23. 2013 meeting. Squarely on this point in the case of Martin v. is subject to the provisions of Article 1330 of the Civil Code. the defendants refused to accede to his claim. the same is not valid because the requisite of a valid quitclaim is that it must be WRITTEN. Assuming said agreement be decided to be valid since not yet annulled. Plaintiff is very much decided not to accept the claim because of sorrow and grief. intimidation. Thereafter the agreement and an affidavit of quitclaim was presented before him and despite reluctance. et al. this Court ruled that parties to the compromise agreement who signed and executed the same willingly and voluntarily should be bound by its terms. In fact. undue influence or fraud is voidable. and with REASONABLE terms and conditions. such amount will never replace the loss of the lives of his family. (Article 2038 of the Civil Code) Article 1330 of the code under obligation and contracts provides that a contract where consent is given through mistake. violence. and undue influence of the defendants. or simply because the judge before whom he executed the act. the other party may enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand. In a regime of law and order. did not have jurisdiction of the case. In the present case. rather they insisted on the 800. 753-754 [1979]). (105 Phil. there was no voluntary agreement. intimidation. entered into VOLUNTARILY. repudiation of an agreement validly entered into cannot be made without any ground or reason in law or in fact for such repudiation. a person cannot repudiate the effects of his voluntary acts simply because it does not fit him. As to the validity of affidavit of quitclaim. farud. Martin.

) The compromise agreement is not valid between the plaintiff and defendants. this party shall use as its basis the formula used in the landmark case Rodiguez-Luna vs IAC (G. Rep. This court has already gone some distance in incorporating into our jurisprudence those principles of the American law of actual damages which are of a general and abstract nature. (2) The amount offered in the compromise agreement is unreasonable.000. include pecuniary recompense for pain and suffering. in the landmark case of Algarra vs Sandejas (G.000. actual damages for a negligent act or omission are confined to those which "were foreseen or might have been foreseen. at age 33 the life expectancy of Roberto Luna .000. 62988. This is what the trial court said on Luna's life expectancy: "According to the American Experience Table of Mortality.R No. In such case.) The affidavit of quitclaim is not valid." or those which were "the natural and probable consequences" or "the direct and immediate consequences" of the act or omission. 1914).000. Luna could have lived for 30 more years.000. Further. 1985). 287).000.00 annual personal expenses. C. injured feelings. as interpreted by this court in Meralco vs. Velasco (11 Phil. Aside from this exception. and (b) that his annual net income was P55. To justify the plaintiff’s claim for loss of income amounting to 5. in this jurisdiction. L-8385. Article 1902.650.00 annual gross income less P20. under the American system. Existence of Cause of Action for damages other than actual damages. in the sense that they mean just compensation for the loss suffered.00 was based on two factors.R No.not executed in accordance with the requirements of law. namely: (a) that the deceased Roberto R.00. are practically synonymous with actual damages under the American system. actual damages.. Hence it is but a matter or right of herein plaintiff to recover not only the actual expenses for the death of the wife and two sons but also the loss of income by her wife. the award of P1. Actual or Compensatory damages Under both the Spanich Civil Code and American of damages. that the compromise agreement be voided pursuant to the discussions above-mentioned. (4. and the like. does not extend to such incidents. (3. (5) Assuming agreement is voidable. Actual damages. computed at P75.

his social and financial. Dr. She is earning 70. he had the means of staying fit and preserving his health and wellbeing.) In addition. Allowing for this condition. He said that except for a slight anemia which he had ten years earlier.000 as indemnity for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased Maria Cruz. the expectation that he could have lived for another thirty years is reasonable. the plaintiff submit that her wife Maria." (Record on Appeal. She also maintains a mini-dress shop in Baguio City.) The Court of Appeals in sustaining the trial court's conclusion said: "We have not been persuaded to disturb the conclusion that the deceased had a life expectancy of thirty years. medical director of San Miguel Corporation.4 years. That he could have lived at least until the age of sixtythree years is an assessment which is more on the conservative side in view of the testimony of Dr.00 his life expectancy was 38. is a head chief accounting officer of Philippines Economic Zone Authority Head Branch.000php. he could reasonably expect to have a life expectancy of 30 years. used by our domestic insurance companies since 1968 for policies above P5. and under the Commissioner Standard Ordinary. Maria has a perfect physical condition with a projected life expectancy of perhaps 30 years.51 years.was 33. Such period of time is reasonable.000php. With his almost perfect physical condition and his sound and. p. Vicente Campa.000.000php (already deducted are the expenses incurred for the family and personal needs. testified that he was the regular physician of Roberto Luna since his marriage to Felina Rodriguez in 1957. . he was only thirty-three years old and in the best of health. Taking those in consideration. social humiliation suffered. mental anguish.000php monthly with an annual net income of 520. P5.000. Plaintiff now maintain: that he be entitled to the claim To pay jointly and severally the sum of P500. and Bruce Cruz. fright. p. 33.000 as indemnity for the death of Maria Cruz. But the plaintiff is only asking to be compensated in the amount of 5. Logan Cruz. serious anxiety." (Rollo. Vicente Campa that the general life expectancy nowadays had gone up to seventy years. the loss of income should have been more than 5. considering that with his educational attainment.) In the present case. wounded feelings. At the time of Luna's death. 45.000. Roberto Luna was of good health.000. Moral Damages The plaintiff seeks to be compensated for the physical suffering. moral shock.

2014.000php. VIII. PRAYER WHEREFORE.000 as indemnity for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased Maria Cruz.000 as attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. Respectfully submitted. VII. the plaintiff requests that such be offset form the total claims for loss and damages. premises considered. The claimant has clearly established the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the acts of the defendant. through their counsel believes that the defendants are liable for damages claimed by the plaintiff. the damages were shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The plaintiff now maintain that he be compensated P100. & YANGCO Law Firm SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG School of Law 63E. CRUZ. and Bruce Cruz. 3/F St. Fax # 867-9122 .000 as moral damages. Logan Cruz. City of Makati. to the plaintiff by defendant is a valid indemnification. To pay jointly and severally the sum of P500. it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendants ordering the latter: a. Philippines. CONCLUSION With the laws and jurisprudence presented.000 as moral damages. BAYLON. Maur’s Bldg. the plaintiff.. Don Manolo Blvd.The plaintiff during the trial have already convinced the court that the mere loss of the lives of his family and leaving him alone and no one beside him anymore is already a satisfactory proof that he has suffered damages and injury pursuant to Article 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code.000 as indemnity for the death of Maria Cruz. To pay jointly and severally the sum of P30. that assuming arguendo the payment of 800. Muntinlupa City Tel # 854-3098. b. P5. Alabang Hills Village.000. Moreover. February 23. and P100.

08/08/08 MCLE No. 3/F St. 12/12/12 COPY FURNISHED BY PERSONAL SERVICE: DUMALANTA & FLORES Law Firm Counsel for Defendants Brad Feet and Ryan Goslee San Beda College Alabang School of Law 63A. Alabang Hills Village. II – 876500. 7654321. #: 842-2222 GAMMAD & BAUTISTA Law Firm Counsel for Defendants Christian Veil and Henry Kabil San Beda College Alabang School of Law 63A. Muntinlupa City Tel. 54321. 654321. Alabang Hills Village. 12/12/12 MCLE No.Muntinlupa Roll No.. 3/F St. #: 345-6666 Received by: _____________________ Date: ______________ . Don Manolo Blvd. I – 432100. No. 01/10/13 – Muntinlupa PTR. Muntinlupa City Tel.By: CHRISTINE BERNADETTE CRUZ Counsel for the Plaintiff IBP No. 01/10/13 . Maur’s Bldg. Maur’s Bldg.. Don Manolo Blvd.