REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Eight (8th) Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRAIL COURT
BRANCH I
Borongan City, Eastern Samar

Luna Cruz
Complainant CIVIL CASE NO. 1234
-versus-
Emma Gunda
Defendant
X----------------------/

MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Emma Gunda, through the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this Memorandum and avers THAT:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The prosecution filed a case against the defendant, Emma Gunda, based on the alleged
negligence of her carpenter, which resulted in the death of Luna Cruz's dog, Bruno.

ANTECEDENT FACTS

1. The incident occurred on February 25, 2023, when Luna Cruz's dog, Bruno, was tragically run
over by a truck parked in front of Emma Gunda's house. Luna Cruz alleges that the truck
belonged to one of Emma Gunda's carpenters.

2. Luna Cruz claims that Emma Gunda failed to address the complaints and warnings regarding
her dog's behavior, leading to the unfortunate incident.

3. The defense contends that Emma Gunda exercised due diligence in addressing the
complaints about Luna Cruz's dog and that the truck was properly parked according to
subdivision rules.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Emma Gunda is liable for
the death of Luna Cruz's dog, Bruno.

ARGUMENTS

1 Lack of Evidence: The prosecution has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish Emma
Gunda's liability for the death of Luna Cruz's dog. While it is regrettable that Bruno was
involved in a tragic accident, there is no direct evidence linking Emma Gunda's actions or
omissions to the incident.
 - Article 2176 of the Civil Code states that a person who causes damage to another through
fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. However, the burden of proof lies
with the plaintiff to establish this fault or negligence. In the absence of clear evidence
demonstrating Emma Gunda's direct involvement or negligence, the case against her lacks
merit.

2. Proper Parking: Emma Gunda's carpenter parked the truck in front of her house, following
subdivision rules. There is no evidence to suggest that the carpenter was negligent in parking
the truck or that Emma Gunda failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring the safety of her
property.

- According to Secosa vs. Francisco (G.R. No. 160039, June 29, 2004), not all complaints should
be regarded as substantial. If Emma Gunda can demonstrate that she took reasonable steps to
address any complaints regarding her property or her carpenter's actions, it would strengthen
her defense against claims of negligence.

3. Contributory Negligence: Luna Cruz's failure to restrain her dog and prevent it from roaming
the streets contributed to the unfortunate incident. Despite warnings from the homeowners'
association, Luna Cruz allowed Bruno to roam freely, which increased the risk of accidents.

- Article 2179 of the Civil Code addresses contributory negligence, stating that if the plaintiff's
own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of their injury, they cannot recover
damages. Luna Cruz's failure to take appropriate measures to control her dog's behavior may
diminish her ability to hold Emma Gunda liable for the incident.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court dismisses
the case against Emma Gunda for lack of merit.

Respectfully submitted this March 6, 2024 in Borongan City, Eastern, Philippines

Atty. Stephanie Maiko T. Basada

Counsel for the Defendant

Taniñas-Basada Law Firm

Barangay E, Borongan City, Eastern Samar
Roll of Attorney No. 12345
IBP O.R. No.: 123456
MCLE Compliance No. 1234567