UPPERCLASSMEN – GROUP 1

Reynald Mangao Kimberly Ann Panes

Bryan Ray Macabaya Xyvie Dianne Daradar
Ralph Angelo Metrillo

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum as follows:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On May 11, 2010 at about 10 AM, plaintiff, Joan Cruz and her son, Biboy went to shop at
Royal Supermart.

2. Upon seeing a ball that rolled along the aisle, Biboy chased it and slipped on the aisle’s
wet floor, crashing with a heavy bang. Joan witnessed this as Biboy then shrieked from
pain in his wrist, which he used to stop his fall.

3. Joan attested that there was a puddle on the floor which seeped out from a leaking bottle
in a nearby shelf where Biboy was situated.

4. During that time, Rene Castro, Supermarket Supervisor for Gloria Supermart, was
placing stocks of noodles when he dropped his task and rushed to see what the racket was
all about and claims that the puddle was from the items that had fallen in a nearby shelf.

5. Castro carried Biboy to Joan’s car and accompanied them to the Philippine Orthopedic
Hospital where he received treatment for his wrist and recovered in six weeks.

6. Joan and her husband spent about PhP 22,840.00 in medical expenses and PhP 5,000.00
for toys used to distract Biboy from the pain. Biboy also experienced discomfort and
depression and Joan claims to have also been distressed.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the management and employees of Royal Supermart displayed gross
negligence in ensuring the safety of their customers within their premises

2. Whether or not the supermarket in question, Royal Supermart, is liable for damages from
the physical injuries that Biboy suffered

3. Whether or not Plaintiff, Mrs. Cruz is entitled to recover damages

 ARGUMENTS
I. Defendant Royal Supermarket Inc., exhibited gross negligence in keeping their
store safe for customers.

It is important to first establish the way negligence is defined by law to determine its
existence. According to jurisprudence on the case of Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 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 doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
The plaintiff contends that the supermarket must be held responsible for negligence in the
maintenance of nuisances, as they should have been alert of the presence of nuisances.
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisances as any act, omission, establishment,
condition of property, or anything else which (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of
others; or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies, or disregards decency or
morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or
any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property.
In the present case, petitioner grounds on the failure of the respondent to clear the area of
items that draw children away from their parents, like the loose ball that rolled down the aisle
and the puddle on the floor from spilled liquids which represent hazards that could jeopardize the
safety of customers.
In the Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan, et. al., attractive nuisances were defined as dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play. The ball is to be
considered as an attractive nuisance for were it not for it rolling, the child of the petitioner would
have not been injured after being distracted by the ball’s rolling and running into the puddle. The
rolling ball was the proximate cause for the injury suffered by Biboy following the sine qua non
test or the “but for test” which provides that the defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of the
injury if the damage would not have resulted had there been negligence on the part of the
defendant.
In the case at bar, Mrs. Cruz could not be held liable for the injury for reason that she could
not have known the ball would roll and catch Biboy’s attention as revealed in her testimony.
Under Torts, a child below 9 years old is disputably presumed to be incapable of negligence so
Biboy cannot also be held liable for running after the ball and suffering injuries therefrom.

II. Defendant Royal Supermarket Inc., should be made liable for damages for the
injuries suffered by the child of the plaintiff, by reason of the failure to maintain
attractive nuisances present in their store.
 Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that Quasi-delicts or acts or omissions committed by
a person, there being fault or negligence, he will be obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties is called a
quasi-delict.
The provisions of Article 2180 of the Civil Code that the obligation imposed by the
previously mentioned article is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom one is responsible. This provision includes 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.
The defendant failed to exhibit due diligence in the maintenance of nuisance. According to
the testimony of Mrs. Cruz, there were no cleaners present to clear the puddle, nor were there
clerks around to warn customers of the danger the puddle presented. It can also be supported by
the presence of Castro in the other aisle who was not from his standpoint capable of seeing
exactly how the puddle came to be. For the negligence of Royal Supermarket Inc., they should
be made liable for damages.

III. Plaintiff, Mrs. Joan Cruz is entitled to recover damages.

Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that for one to be entitled to an adequate
compensation, only for such pecuniary loss suffered, such compensation is referred to as actual
or compensatory damages.
The plaintiff has duly proven the expenses she incurred from paying her son’s medical
bills. Aside from actual damages, the plaintiff also suffered mental anguish, fright and anxiety
warranting for moral damages, which is covered under Article 2217 of the Civil Code. Hence,
the defendant must answer for damages to the plaintiff amounting to PhP 500,000.00
representing both actual and moral damages.
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, plaintiff Joan Cruz, in behalf of its counsel respectfully
prays to the Honorable Court to::
(1) Declare the defendant liable for injuries sustained by plaintiff’s son
(2) Grant this petition to be meritorious
(3) Entitle the plaintiff for actual and moral damages of PhP 500,000.00