PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Jonna Bueno, filed an action for damages against Gloria Supermart, Inc., before
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. She claims P500,000.00 as damages for the injuries
suffered by her minor son, Ricky, caused by the negligence of the defendants employees and for
the emotional pain and suffering that it caused to them. Defendant Gloria Supermart denies her
claim and asserts that it was not negligent. Instead, it claims that the accident was caused by
Jonnas negligence and she alone should be made to suffer the consequences of her own actions.
Both parties have presented their evidences and witnesses. The case is now submitted for
decision.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

At about ten in the morning of May 11, 2010, Jonna Bueno and her 5-year old son,
Ricky, were grocery shopping at Gloria Supermart located in Ortigas Avenue, San Juan, Metro
Manila. Supposedly, they were to buy tomato sauce for Rickys spaghetti along with other
things. In the middle of their shopping, a small ball rolled along the aisle and Ricky ran for it.
However, he stepped over a puddle of syrup and slipped. He fell so hard with a heavy bang that
shrieked in pain. Apparently, he hurt his wrist as he tried to stop his fall. Jonna immediately
come to his sons aid. As she attended him, she noticed that the syrup on the floor seeped out
from a leaking bottle in a nearby shelf. Meanwhile, Rene Castro, the supermarket supervisor,
approached her. She asked him to help her carry her son to her car, so that she can rush him to
the hospital. She then brought Ricky to the Philippine Orthopaedic Hospital, where he was
handled by Dr. John D. Lim, the physician-on-duty at the emergency room. Dr. Lim operated on
Rickys right wrist. He had to restore the position of his fractured bone. Thereafter, he required
Ricky to stay overnight at the hospital for pain management and care. Ricky was released the
next day. At first, he complained that his wrist caused him great pain. Later on, he moved with
discomfort and difficulty. He was unable to use both hands. It took him 6 weeks to fully
recover. His mother spent P22,840.00 all in all for his doctors fee, hospitalization and
medication. Moreover, she experienced mental suffering as she witnessed her only sons painful
recovery.

On the other hand, Rene Castro, Glorias supermarket supervisor, testified for the
defendant. He claimed that at ten in the morning of May 11, 2010, he was fixing the new stock
of instant noodles when he heard a commotion at the next aisle. He quickly walked towards the
noise and saw Ricky lying on the floor and crying in pain. His mother, Jonna, was trying to
minister him. He observed that bottles of syrup from a nearby shelf fell from the floor, including
a glass bottle that was broken and spilled part of its contents to the floor. He assisted Jonna in
rushing Ricky to the hospital. While Ricky was undergoing surgery, he talked to Jonna and she
said that her son slipped on the floor because some syrup seeped out of a leaking bottle in one of
the shelves. She blamed the supermarket for the accident. Though he thought differently, Rene
kept his silence.
 ISSUES

The issues of the case, as determined by the court in its pre-trial order, are as
follows:

1. Whether or not Gloria Supermart is liable for damages for the injury suffered by
Ricky Bueno; and
2. Whether or not Jonna Bueno was contributorily negligent for the accident, which
calls for the reduction in claimed damages.

ARGUMENTS

1. GLORIA SUPERMART IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES SINCE ITS

EMPLOYEES NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE
ACCIDENT.

As it can be gleaned from the records, Ricky suffered from a fractured bone when he
tried to stop his fall as he slipped over a puddle of syrup. The syrup apparently seeped out from
a broken bottle in a nearby shelf. Ordinarily, the supermarkets employees should have detected
the mess and cleaned the area. At the very least, it should have placed a warning sign informing
buyers to pass by with caution. But it didnt. It failed to meet its responsibility to keep the
premises neat and clear from obstructions. It was negligent in maintaining cleanliness and
should be held accountable if by reason of such negligence, customers have suffered from
mishaps.

In Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 129792, December 21, 1999),
the Court defined negligence as 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 not do. Following this
definition, the test of negligence is therefore this: could a prudent man, in the position of the
person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course actually pursued? Applying this question to the case, it is clear that
Gloria Supermart was negligent. As a supermarket, tons of customers pass by its aisles everyday
to purchase something. It was the responsibility of Gloria to keep those aisles clean and clear in
order to ensure the safety and continued patronage of its buyers. When a bottle of syrup got
broken and its contents spilled on the floor, it was the burden of Gloria to keep on eye out for
these expected eventualities and to immediately address the issue. It should have expected, like
any ordinarily prudent and reasonable man, that a hapless buyer would eventually step on it
without noticing and slip because of it. After all, buyers do not look on the floor when they buy
their groceries. It is common knowledge that they look sideways on the aisles as they search
for the items they need. Gloria should have deployed employees to regularly survey their aisles
and see if they steered clear from obstructions.

This negligence was the proximate cause of Rickys 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.
COL Realty Corp., G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009). Had there been no syrup on the floor,
Ricky would not have slipped and suffered a bad fall. Even if, admittedly, Ricky was running at
the time he stepped on the puddle, he wouldnt have ordinarily fractured his bone had the floor
been clear from obstructions. Besides, syrups, by their very nature, are transparent. Only a
scrutinizing eye can detect its presence on the floor and buyers are not expected to act in this
manner.

Considering that Gloria Supermarts employees were negligent and such negligence was
the proximate cause for Rickys injury, Gloria Supermart should be held accountable. Article
2180 of the Civil Code supports this conclusion. It states,

The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only

for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is
responsible.
xxx xxx xxx
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.

2. JONNA BUENO WAS NOT CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT FOR

HER SONS INJURY

Jonna was not negligent in watching over her son, while they were grocery shopping.
Indeed, parents have the natural right and duty to take care and discipline their children. But
Jonna did not show lack of due care when she let Ricky run after the ball. The records show that
she was watching her son at that time. Furthermore, a child running after a ball does not
necessarily mean that he is engaged in play. The child may be actually trying to fetch the ball
and return it to its rightful place or owner. There was no reason for Jonna discipline nor closely
monitor her child at that time. Also, Jonna couldnt have reasonably foreseen her sons mishap.
As mentioned earlier, the syrup was presumably transparent and couldnt be detected unless
scrutinized up close. She also had good reason to believe that the supermarket regularly
maintains the cleanliness of its store. There is no basis to find her negligent.

3. GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THERE IS NO PROOF AS TO

WHO OR WHAT CAUSED THE SYRUP TO FALL ON THE
FLOOR, GLORIA SUPERMARKET IS STILL LIABLE UNDER RES
IPSA LOQUITOR.

In his testimony, Rene Castro made a baseless inference that the syrup on the
floor must have come from one of the bottles that Ricky knocked off from the shelf
when he ran wild down the aisle. This should not be given credence since Rene himself testified
that he did not see how the incident happened. Therefore, he did not have the competence to
testify on that matter. But granting, for the sake of argument, that there is no proof as to who or
what caused the spillage, Gloria Supermart should still be held liable based on the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitor. First of all, Rickys accident, as explained earlier, was due to the supermarket
employees negligence in failing to maintain the cleanliness of the store. Secondly, it is without
a doubt that the supermarkets premises is within exclusive management and control of Gloria
Supermart. Thirdly, it has been established that Ricky did not contribute to his injury. Any other
person would have slipped, had they stepped on the syrup-coated floor. All these three elements
put into operation the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, which strengthens plaintiffs position that the
supermarket is liable for damages.

4. JONNA IS ENTITLED TO ACTUAL DAMAGES AND MORAL

DAMAGES

Jonna has presented receipts proving that she incurred P22,840.00 in expenses for her
sons over-all treatment. Based on Art. 2199 of the Civil Code, she is entitled to actual damages.
In addition, she is entitled for moral damages for the mental suffering she experienced. Since
this action is based on Gloria Supermarts quasi-delict resulting in physical injuries, she should
be allowed to recover it in accordance with Art. 2219 of the Civil Code.

PRAYER

Wherefore, plaintiff prays that the court renders judgment:

1. finding Gloria Supermart liable for damages, and
2. ordering the defendant to pay P500,000.00 all-in-all as damages
including P22,840.00 as compensatory damages.
All other just and equitable reliefs are prayed for.

xxxx
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Address
Attorney Roll No.
IBP
MCLE No.