Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12



BRANCH _____


Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 1-0002

-versus- For: Damages arising

from quasi-delict, Loss of
Earning Capacity, Actual,
Moral and Exemplary
Damages, Attorney’s Fees
as represented by its President
Ferleen Figueroa,


PLAINTIFFS, through counsel and unto this Honorable

Court respectfully submits this Pre-Trial Brief in compliance
with the trial court’s order received on January ___, 2019.


On November 25, 2018, Defendant Project Luntian Inc.

(hereinafter referred to as PLI) conducted a marathon event
called “Project Luntian: Takbo Para Sa Kalikasan” during
which Jurielle Dhave Chua, a minor and an Electrical
Engineering student, the son of Plaintiffs Spouses Ivan and
Queencel Chua, participated. Jurielle Dhave met an accident
when he was hit by an uknown private vehicle during the
marathon. Jurielle Dhave was brought to Baguio General
Hospital by Albert Olarte, a concerned citizen who saw the
incident. Jurielle Dhave died thereafter. PLI was clearly
negligent due to its failure to employ adequate safety
measures and efficient planning during the marathon contest.

Page 1 of 12
Such negligence was the proximate cause of the death of


In their complaint filed with this Honorable Court, the

plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendant PLI payment of
actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as damages
arising from quasi-delict, and attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs
also seek to recover loss of earning capacity of Jurielle Dhave.
It was the negligence of defendant PLI that was the proximate
cause of Jurielle’s death inasmuch as they did not employ
adequate safety and precautionary measures during the
marathon. Hence, this complaint.


Plaintiffs are willing to consider any amicable settlement

or undergo alternative modes of dispute resolution with
respect to the primary prayers of this complaint.


Plaintiffs admit to the following facts regarding to the

parties to the case as undisputed:

1) That complainants are Ivan Chua and Queencel Masaoy-

Chua (Spouses Chua), of legal age, married, Filipino
citizens, and residents of #50 Lower Bonifacio St., Baguio
City are parents to Jurielle Dhave Chua, 17 years old,
and a second year student of Electrical Engineering at
Saint Louis University;

2) Private defendant, Project Luntian Inc. (hereinafter

referred as PLI), is a private corporation duly existing and
organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
principal address at #23 Liyab Building, Lower Session
Road, Baguio City. PLI is dedicated to protecting the
environment and advocating for green legislation. It is
Page 2 of 12
engaged in raising funds for the campaign on
environmental issues such as climate change,
deforestation among others and provides funding for
researches geared toward biodiversity.

Plaintiffs admits the following facts as undisputed and

herein presented:

1) That as found in Paragraph II of the Defendant's Answer

and Paragraph 3 of the Complaint; that On November 25,
2018, the defendant corporation organized a fund raising
marathon contest billed as “Project Luntian: Takbo Para
sa Kalikasan” along Burnham Park- University of the
Philippines- Baguio General Hospital and to end at Kisad
Road, wherein anyone can participate upon payment of
registration fees and compliance of requirements.

2) That as found in Paragraph IV of the Answer and

Paragraph 4 of the Complaint; that Jurielle was an
officially registered participant of the event;

3) That in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and as found in

Paragraph V of the Answer; that on the day of the
marathon, Jurielle and the other participants, majority of
which are students of Saint Louis University, gathered in
Burnham Park and were informed by Gaabriel Gay-yaso,
event coordinator, about the last minute change in the
route of the marathon with the end point of the race now
at Military Cut-off Road;

4) That as found Paragraph 11 and 12 of the Complaint and

paragraph 13 of the Answer, that nearing the BGH
Flyover, while Jurielle was running, he was hit from
behind by a private vehicle running along the route of the
marathon causing him to fall and hit his head. As a
result, Jurielle was brought immediately to Baguio
General Hospital by a concerned citizen, Albert Olarte.
However, despite medical attention given to him at the
hospital, he died later that same day due to severe head


The Plaintiffs proposes the following factual and legal

issues to be tried and resolved by this Honorable Court:
Page 3 of 12
1) Whether the defendant corporation, as organizer of the
marathon run, is guilty for negligence, and if so, was
their negligence the proximate cause of the death of the

2) Whether the heirs of the fatality can recover actual,

moral and exemplary damages;

3) Whether the plaintiffs can validlty claim for loss of

earning capacity of Jurielle;


Plaintiffs will present the following Documentary


1. An To prove the guidelines and “A”
Instruction rules of the marathon as well
Brochure given as the marathon route.
by PLI to
2. Cash Receipt To prove that he was an “B”
for Registration official participant in the
of Jurielle marathon.
Dhave Chua
3. Cash Receipt To prove that he was an “C”
of Richard official participant in the
Valbuena marathon.
4. Death To prove the death of Jurielle “D”
Certificate of Dhave and the cause thereof.
Jurielle Dhave

Page 4 of 12
5. Receipts of To prove the funeral and “E”
Funeral and cremation expenses incurred
Cremation by the Spouses Chua
6. Certificate of To prove the exemplary “F”
Dean’s List for academic performance of
1st Semester of Jurielle.
S.Y. 2017 –
7. Certificate of To prove the exemplary “G”
Dean’s List for academic performance of
2nd Semester of Jurielle.
S.Y. 2017 –
8. Official To prove that Jurielle was “H”
Transcript of enrolled as an Electrical
Records of Engineering student in Saint
Jurielle Dhave Louis University, Baguio City.
9. Certificate of To prove that Jurielle Dhave “I”
Good Moral Chua was a student of good
Character of standing.
Jurielle Dhave
Chua from the
Affairs Office
10. Certificate of To prove that Jurielle Dhave “J”
Participation Chua was in good physical
and mental state prior to the
11. Patient To prove the time and “K”

Page 5 of 12
Admission circumstances surrounding
Sheet of Rose the admission of Rose Abrogar
Abrogar to the hospital
12. Patient To prove the time and “L”
Admission circumstances surrounding
Sheet of Jurielle the admission of Rose Abrogar
Dhave Chua to the hospital

Plaintiffs will present the following Testamentary

Evidence and abstract thereof:

1. Albert He will testify on the fact that he was
Olarte the one who brought Jurielle Dhave Chua
to the Baguio General Hospital because no
one was attending to him.
2. Richard He will testify on the fact that he was
Valbuena also a participant during the marathon
and that there was insufficient assistance
and inadequate preparation from the
marshals and organizers during the
3. Luis He will testify on the fact that his
Pungtilan barangay’s assistance was requested by
PLI for the conduct of the marathon and
there was no proper coordination among
and between the cooperating agencies and
lack of specific instruction and
supervision by PLI over them.

Page 6 of 12
4. Queencel She will testify on the allegations in
Masaoy- the complaint; that they suffered moral
Chua damages and to prove the expenses they
incurred for the funeral and cremation of
Jurielle. She will also testify on the
academic performance, character standing
as well as Jurielle’s physical and mental
state prior to the accident.
5. Pamu She will testify as to the truth of the
Tyago contents of the patient admission sheets
which includes the time and informants
regarding the admissions Rose Abrogar
and Jurielle Dhave Chua.


The Plaintiffs respectfully inform this Honorable Court of

their willingness to proceed to an actual trial of the case
whenever necessary at the convenient time to the parties and
the calendar of this tribunal.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed unto this Honorable Court that the foregoing Pre-Trial
Brief be duly noted.

Done this 14th day of February 2019.


Plaintiffs respectfully reserve the right to present other

witnesses, documents or evidence in addition to, or in
substitution of, those mentioned above should a need thereof
arises; propose other issues as the exigencies of trial may

Page 7 of 12
demand; cite and invoke other laws and jurisprudence that
may be warranted.


1) PLI is guilty of negligence in the conduct of the marathon.

Under Article 2202 of the Civil Code, “Whoever by act or

omission causes damages to another, there being fault of
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages done. “ Liability
for quasi- delict under this article requires the following:

a) An unlawful act or omission amounting to a fault of

negligence imputable to the defendant;
b) Damage or injury to the plaintiff;
c) Such damage or injury being the natural and probable,
or direct and immediate consequence of the defendant’s
wrongful act or omission; and
d) There being no pre-existing contractual relation between
the plaintiff and defendant.

Article 1173 of the Civil Code defines negligence as the

omission of that deliggence which is required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place. If the law or contract
does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good father of a
family shall be observed.

As basis for liability, the negligent act or omission must be

the proximate cause of the damage sufgfered by the plaintiff.
Thus, negligence is is a relative term whose application
depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of
case and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably
require and so where the danger is great, a high degree of care
is necessary and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary
care under the circumsatances. (Corliss v Manila Railroad Co.
GR No. 21291, March 28, 1969)

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
Page 8 of 12
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he
is guilty of negligence. (Picart v Smith, GR No. L-12219, March
15, 1918) The existence of negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor
in the situation before him. The law considers what would be
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

In this case, the marathon race organized by PLI was a

junior marathon participated mostly by students aged 17-20
years old. This was their target audience as gleamed from the
fact that they were distributing the fliers for the marathon race
within the vicinity of universities in Baguio City. The route
covers Burnham Road, University of the Philippines, Baguio
Gweneral Hospital untin Kisad Road, originaly. This route
consists of the major roads and the main entrance of toursist
towards Baguio City. Coupled with these facts, young
participants will run side by side with moving vehicles.

In staging the event, PLI worked with cooperating agencies

and volunteers. However, no actual instructions were given on
how to safeguard the safety of the runners, albeit only the
position on where such cooperating agents will station
themselves during the event. Moreover, there was no
explanation on why PLI chose this route for the young
runners, without careful consideration on all the factors

The circumstances of the persons, time and place required

far more than what PLI undertook in staging the race. Due
diligence would have made a reasonably prudent organizer of
the race participated in by young, inexperienced or beginner
runners to conduct the race in a route suitably blocked off
from vehicular traffic for the safety and security not only of the
participants but the motoring public as well. Since the
marathon would be run alongside moving vehicular traffic, at
the very least, PLI ought to have seen to the constant and
closer coordination among the personnel manning the route to
prevent the foreseen risks from befalling the participants. But
this, it sadly failed to do.

Page 9 of 12
2) Loss of Earning Capacity

Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim
are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity.
Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of
earnings, but for loss of capacity to earn. It partakes of the
nature of actual damages which is duly proven usually by
documentary evidence except when the deceased is self-
employed and earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws, or when he was employed as a daily wage
earner earning less than the minimum wage.

In this case, due to the early termination of the life of

Spouses Chua’s son, he was deprived of his bright future as
an electrical engineer. Thus, the Spouses are entitled to loss of
earning capacity.

3) Plaintiff are entitled to actual damages, moral and

exemplary damages

Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, “Except as provided by

law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as
he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as
actual or compensatory damages.”

In this case, Spouses Chua were able to adduce evidence to

satisfactorily prove the amount of actual damage incurred,
particularly the funeral and cremation expenses.

Under Article 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages

include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s
wrongful act or omission.

In this case, there was a clear showing via testimonies of

the Spouses Chua that they actually experienced mental
anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings, or similar injury
resulting from the death of their only son. Since an award of
moral damages is predicated on a categorical showing by the

Page 10 of 12
claimants that they actually experienced emotional and mental
sufferings, it must be allowed in this case.

Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, willful injury to

property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if
the court should find that, under the circumstances, such
damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of
contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad

In this case, PLI exhibited wanton negligence in effecting the

plans, designs, specifications, and conduct of the marathon
race. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary damages.

4) Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees

Spouses Mamerto v. Rural Bank of San Jose (G.R. No.

201436, July 11, 2016) “The law is clear that in the absence of
stipulation, attorney’s fees may be awarded as actual or
compensatory damages under any of the circumstances
provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The general rule
is that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages
because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the
right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party
wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney’s fees
under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable


The following are the available trial dates:

1. February 7, 2019
2. February 14, 2019
3. February 21, 2019
4. February 28, 2019

Baguio City, 14th day of February 2019

Page 11 of 12
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Room No. 3, 2nd Floor, BBCCC Building,
Cooperative St. Corner
Assumption Road, Baguio City


Atty. Jorielle Dave G. De Guzman

Roll No. 180516
PTR No. 2221345, 10-5-20, Baguio City
IBP No. 561430, 11-12-22, Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. 103714, 8-10-20

Copy Furnished
By personal service

Atty. John Lester Balagot

Counsel for the Defendant
Liyab Law Firm
#5 South Sanitary Camp, Baguio City

Page 12 of 12