Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch __, Quezon City

JONNA BUENO, CIVIL CASE NO. ____

Plainti, For Damages
-versus
GLORIA SUPERMART, INC.
Defendant,
x----------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

Defendant, by counsel, respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Jonna Bueno (hereinafter Bueno) filed the

present action for damages of P500,000.00 against Defendant

Gloria Supermart, Inc. (hereinafter GSI). Bueno attributes

the injuries sustained by her minor son, Ricky, to the

negligence of GSI in failing to make their premises safe for

their customers. Defendant maintains that it exercised due

care, and whatever injuries sustained by Buenos son should

be attributed to Buenos failure to supervise his child.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. GSI is a duly registered corporation engaged in selling

grocery items with a place of business located in Ortigas

Avenue, San Juan, Metro Manila.

2. Bueno is 35 years old, married and a resident of 89

Little Baguio St., San Juan City, Metro Manila. She had been

buying from GSI for the past 20 years.

3. At about 10 AM on May 11, 2010, Bueno with her son

5-year old son, Ricky, went to the premises of GSI, 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. When Ricky had gone some distance from where Bueno

stood, she saw him slipped with a heavy bang on the wet

section of the aisle. She immediately came to his side to help

him as he shrieked from pain in his wrist which he used to

stop his fall.

 5. She testified that there was on the floor a syrup that

seeped out from a leaking bottle in a nearby shelf.

6. She testified further that there was no supermarket

cleaner around during that time and no warning sign had been

placed in the area.

7. Furthermore, she heard someone shout, Hoy Bata

ingat! May basa diyan!

8. Then she brought him to the Philippine Orthopedic

Hospital. Ricky was operated in his right wrist to restore the

position of a fractured bone as shown by the x-ray picture. He

was able to recover only six (6) weeks from the accident.

9. She incurred P22, 840.00 for doctors fee,

hospitalization and medicine as shown by her receipts. She

also spent P5, 000. 00 for the toys she bought for Ricky to

distract him from the pain he suffered.

10. GSI, on the other hand, presented a witness, Rene

Castro (hereinafter Castro), who is a supervisor of GSI. He

works in the store for five years.

12. He testified that at that moment when the incident

happened, he was on the next aisle. When he heard a

commotion, he immediately looked and saw Ricky lying on the

floor in pain;
 13. He testified that there was one glass bottle that was

broken and spilled part of its contents on the floor.

14. He inferred from the position of Ricky that he

bumped into the shelf containing syrup bottles and knocked

off the glass bottle.

ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the

following issues are presented for discussion:

1. Whether or not GSI is negligent in ensuring the safety

of their customers within their premises.

2. Whether or not GSI is liable for damages resulted

from Rickys physical injuries.

ARGUMENTS

I. GSI is not negligent in ensuring the safety of their

customers within their premises.

 Bueno contends that CSI must be held responsible for

the negligence made by its staff according to the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitor. She alleges that CSI did not warn its

customers of the puddle on the floor, but CSI cannot warn its

customers of the puddle on the floor which was spilled by

Ricky when he himself, with all likelihood, knocked off the

shelf. Castro testified:

Q: What else did you see?

A: Some items from a nearby shelf had fallen down the floor.

Q: What were these items?

A: There were a couple of bottles of syrup, mostly in plastic

bottles, except one glass bottle that had broken and spilled
part of its contents on the floor.

Q: To what do you account this?

A: I could infer from the position of Ricky that he bumped

into the shelf containing syrup bottles and knocked off some
of them.

This testimony makes the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor

inapplicable, because the testimony shows that the accident

was not due to the exclusive management of the agentan

element of the said doctrine. Rickys bumping of the shelf that

caused the spilled syrup was beyond the control of the person

charged. The possibility to foresee the circumstances of the

incident was not under GSIs sole power to prevent. As stated

in Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of

Appeals:

The test for determining whether a person is

negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results
to the person or property of another is 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?1

Also in Picart v. Smith:

The test by which to determine the existence of

negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did
the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same situation? If not, then
he is guilty of negligence. 2

Since there is no negligence on GSIs part, the necessary

conclusion would be that the incident happened was purely an

accident. This is defined in Jarco Marketing Corp. v. Court of

Appeals, to wit:

An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which

no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. xxx

Negligence is the omission to do something, which is

a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do,
or doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. xxx

1
Philippine National Construction Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 159270, Aug. 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569
2
Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918)
 Accident and negligence are intrinsically
contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. Accident
occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary
care, which is not caused by fault of any person and which
could not have been prevented by any means suggested by
common prudence.3

II. GSI is not liable for damages sustained by Buenos son.

The provision of Article 2180 of the Civil Code include

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.

However, this all relies on liability under Article 2176, as

provided:

Article 2180. 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.

Article 2176 which defines liability quasi-delict, states

that:

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes

damage to another, there being fault or negligence, if there
is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this chapter.

3
Jarco Marketing Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 129792, Dec. 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 375
 In this case, the incident was not proven to be a result

of CSIs negligence. Because of this, CSI cannot be held

liable for damages the plaintiff sustained.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of Defendant and

against Plaintiff by:

1. DECLARING the defendant not liable for the injuries

sustained by plaintiffs son Ricky;

2. ORDERING dismiss this case for lack of merit; and

3. ORDERING deny the plaintiffs demand for the

defendant to pay her P500,000.00 in damages.

Other just and equitable remedies under the

circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, November 21, 2017.

 (Sgd) ATTY. RIZALDY FERRER

Counsel for Defendant

Address:

IBP No:

PTR No:

Roll No:

MCLE No:

Copy furnished:

ATTY. BELTRAN

Counsel for Plaintiff

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 defendant.

(Sgd) ATTY. RIZALDY FERRER

Counsel for Defendant