Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Quezon City, Branch I

JONNA BUENO,
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 27-112011

For: Damages

GLORIA SUPERMART, INC.

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the following

Memorandum and states that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This case refers to an action for recovery of damages filed by the plaintiff for the injuries
sustained by her 5-year old son when the latter slipped on the wet floor in one of the aisles of
the defendants grocery store. Plaintiff claims that the defendant is liable for the negligent act of
its employees who failed to clear the puddle of liquid through appropriate signs or barriers.
Defendant on the other hand claims that the event was merely an unfortunate accident for which
it could not be held liable. In any event, defendant claims, the plaintiff is guilty of contributory
negligence.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The following are the undisputed facts called from the evidence presented by both
parties:

(1) Plaintiff Jonna Bueno is of legal age, married, and a resident of 89 Little Baguio St.,
San Juan City, Metro Manila, while Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc. is a duly
registered corporation with principal place of business located along Ortigas Avenue,
San Juan, Metro Manila.
(2) Defendant operates a grocery store from where the plaintiff had been purchasing her
groceries for the past 20 years.
(3) On May 11, 2010, at about 10:00 a.m., plaintiff, together with her 5-year old son
Ricky, went to the Defendants store to shop for groceries. A small red ball which
was rolling along one of the aisles caught Rickys attention. While running after the
 ball, Ricky suddenly slipped on a wet section of the aisle. He however used his right
wrist to break the fall.
(4) Plaintiff, with the assistance of a store clerk, immediately brought Ricky to the
orthopedic Hospital where his right wrist was operated on to restore the position of a
fractured bone. Thereafter he was made to stay in the hospital overnight. Plaintiff
spent P22,840.00 for the doctors fee, hospitalization and medicine, evidenced by
receipts.
(5) Upon Rickys discharge from the hospital it took about six weeks for him to recover
the use of his right wrist. To distract him from the pain suffered, plaintiff incurred
expenses of approximately P5,000.00 for toys.

ISSUES

(1) Whether or not the event was an accident for which defendant may be held liable;
(2) Whether or not the defendants employees were negligent in failing to clear the wet
floor and/or to provide adequate warning to customers of the existence of the puddle
of liquid;
(3) Whether or not the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence; and
(4) Whether of not the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for damages.

ARGUMENTS

The issues shall be addressed in seriatim:

(1) THE INCIDENT WAS A FORESEEABLE EVENT

WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED

An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attached to

the defendant. It occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary case and the event,
not caused by fault of any person, could not have been prevented by any means suggested by
common prudence. 1

Defendants claim that the incident was a mere accident is neglected by the testimony of
its own witness. Mr. Rene Castro, the supermarket supervisor, confirmed in his cross-
examination that accidents normally occur in defendants supermarket. In fact they occur
about once a year such that the defendant have established in dealing with such accidents.

Accidents having been treated by the defendant as a normal occurrence and for which a
procedure for dealing with them has been established, are thus taken out of the context of
unforeseeable events. What the defendant defines as accidents are actually mere unfortunate
occurrences which could be prevented but which are nonetheless not prevented due to fault or
negligence despite its forseeability.

Accidents, in order to exculpate defendant from liability, is one that in unforeseen. In

this case, the incident was foreseeable, an normal occurrence which could have been prevented
1
Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA375
had the defendants employees follow the procedures established for dealing with them.
Procedures which include the prevention of the so-called accidents.

(2) DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES WERE

NEGLIGENT IN MAINTAINING THE
SAFE CONDITION OF THE STORE

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those

consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. 2

In the ordinary course of things one can foresee that a person who might by chance step
on a puddle of liquid or walk on a slippery floor would most likely slip. In fact this is a common
sight which may be prevented by the immediate clearing of the liquid, drying of the floor, or
placing appropriate indicators of the wet floor. In the last instance, a person who nonetheless
walks on such paths despite the indicators does so at his own risk.

In this case the defendant neither cleared the liquid nor indicated its existence with
appropriate signs. Despite the natural consequence of its existence on a person using ordinary
case who might by chance step on it, and slip, still defendant failed to take the necessary
precaution which might be expected from a reasonably prudent man in the position of said
defendant. As such, defendant, acting through its employees, should be held liable for its
negligence which caused injury to the plaintiff and to her son.

(3) PLAINTIFF EXERCISED ORDINARY CARE AS

EXPECTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party contributing as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to
conform for his own protection. It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on
the part of the person injured which, concurring with the defendants negligence, is the
proximate cause of the injury. 3

Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred. 4

Thus, the plaintiffs assumed negligence having been broken by an efficient intervening
cause, plaintiff could not be deemed to have contributed to the injury for which damages are
being claimed.

(4) PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPENSATED

2
Id.
3
National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Noble Cosianan, GR No. 165967, November 27, 2008, 572SCRA71.
4
Ramos vs. COL Realty Corp., GR No. 184905, August 26, 2009,
597SCRA526. Rules of Court, Rule 131, SCC 3(id).
 FOR ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES

Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that whoever causes damage to another,
either by act of omission and with either fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Owners and managers of
an establishement 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. 5

Defendant, as employer, is liable under Article 2180, supra, for the negligence of its
employees. Not having raised nor proved that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage, its liability is fixed.

Among the damages for which defendant should be made liable is the reimbursement of
the actual expenses for hospitalization incurred by the plaintiff from the defendants from the
defendants negligence. Article 2199, supra, provides that compensation for pecuniary loss
suffered is in order only when duly proved. Such is the case. Plaintiff, through her testimony and
by adequate receipts, has duly proved her pecuniary loss. This being the case, plaintiff is entitled
to compensation for actual damages.

In addition, plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of moral damages for the emotional pain
the defendants negligence has brought her and her son. In this regard, plaintiff seeks payment of
moral damages to alleviate their suffering and anguish in an amount commensurate to the
damage caused.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered by this Honorable

Court ordering the defendant to pay:

(1) Actual damages in the amount of P22,840.00;

(2) Moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00; and
(3) Costs of suit.

Other reliefs as may be just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, Philippines, November 27, 2011.

Atty. Rex Beltran

Counsel for the plaintiff
123 Road I, Quezon City
IBP No. 1234567; 01/01/11-Manila
5
Art. 2180, New Civil Code.
 PTR no. 1234567;01/0111- Manila
Roll No. 12345; 05/05/05
MCLE No. 001234;09/09/09

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC, Branch 1
Quezon City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing Memorandum for the Courts consideration.

(Sgd. Atty. Rex Beltran)

Copy Furnished:
Atty. Emil Sunga
Counsel for the Defendant