San Beda College

Mendiola, Manila

College of Law

Final Requirement in
Legal Research

Submitted by:
Ann Rosselle S. Cortes, 1-B

Submitted to:
Dean Ulan Sarmiento III
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch XXX
Makati City

JACK “DOE” AND JILL “DOE”,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No. XX-XXXX

-Versus-

IMPERIAL BUCKET CORPORATION,

Defendant.
x---------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFFS, Jack “Doe” & Jill “Doe”, thru the undersigned

counsel, respectfully submits the following memorandum unto the

honorable court.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an action to compel defendant, Imperial Bucket

Corporation, to compensate the plaintiffs due to the damages caused

by the defendant’s unsafe product design and without proper safety

guidelines pursuant to Article 2176 of the Civil Code (RA 386) and

order to discontinue selling and recall of all products manufactured by

the said defendant pursuant to Article 97 of the Consumer Act of the

Philippines (RA 7394).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiffs were both completely untrained in the proper operation

of the Defendant's bucket, hereinafter referred to as "the pail," when

they attempted to convey such pail up a steep incline, hereinafter

Page 2 of 7
referred to as "the hill."

The pail manufactured by the Defendant was made of steel and

weighed 1.6 pounds when empty. It was designed to be carried by a

rounded metal handle, or "bail." Depending on the material used to fill

the pail, the weight of such pail could vary between 1.9 pounds

(cotton) and 61 pounds (pig iron). Unless one received proper

instruction in the use of this pail, it could easily be overloaded, causing

it to become unstable.

The pail included no directions for safe use, no warnings of any

kind about the potential danger of the pail, and no safety devices to

protect individuals from suffering injuries when using this pail. The pail

could be operated by minors who could not possibly be aware of the

inherent dangers in the defective design of this pail and would

therefore be subject to injury.

Jack and Jill will testify that they were able to move forward in a

skipping (def.: to proceed with leaps and bounds) manner up the hill,

holding on to the pail, which swung precariously between them. Upon

reaching the top of the hill, they proceeded to fill the pail with a clear

liquid, hereinafter referred to as "water." The weight of the water will

be affixed through laboratory testing. What they could not possibly

have known is that the defective design of the pail permitted it to be

filled with water to an unsafe level.

As Plaintiffs began carrying the now hazardous steel pail down

the side of said hill, the water began shifting in the pail, causing the

weight to be unevenly distributed. While this motion, known

scientifically as "sloshing," did cause a partial reduction in the contents

of the pail, this had the effect of causing addition unbalancing of the

pail. Jack and Jill, neither being experienced in the trade of carrying a

Page 3 of 7
pail of water down a steep incline, suffered extreme difficulty in

maintaining control over the pail. In their effort to retain control of the

pail, both Jack and Jill, individually and simultaneously, did lose their

balance owing entirely to the instability of the pail.

According to police reports , Jack apparently lost control of the

pail and fell down the hill. Jill, a young female weighing approximately

forty-eight pounds, could not possibly have been expected to retain

control of the pail without assistance and immediately came tumbling

after.

By reason of the foregoing and by reason of the Defendant's

negligence, Plaintiff's were severely bruised, injured, and wounded;

suffered, and still suffer, and will continue to suffer for some time to

come, physical and mental pain and great bodily injuries. Specifically,

Jack broke his crown in three different places in addition to fracturing

his ribs and right arm. Jill sustained bruises and contusions to her legs,

ankles and wrist. Some of these injuries may well be of a permanent

nature so as to affect the lives of these minors forever and one day.

The Imperial Bucket Corporation, being aware for an

indeterminate time that the bucket they callously manufactured and

offered to market had serious design flaws and under certain

conditions could cause severe injury, nevertheless did continue to

manufacture and market such a bucket to the public. They failed to

take the necessary steps to inform the public of the potential for injury

inherent in the use of their product. That they did so, and continue to

do so, indicates a disregard for the public welfare, for which punitive

damages might be deemed appropriate.

ISSUE

Page 4 of 7
 (1) Whether or not the Defendants are liable for the injuries the

Plaintiffs have suffered and consequently are also liable to pay

the latter damages due to them?

(2) Whether or not there is a need to enjoin the defendant to

discontinue from offering their products, specifically the steel

bucket known as the ‘pail’ as well as to recall such products

currently circulating in the market.

ARGUMENTS

(1)The Defendant is guilty of such product liability when a steel bucket

manufactured by the Defendant, Imperial Bucket Corporation, attested

to be of unsafe design and manufacture, and without proper safety

guards, therefore resulted in an unsafe manner of usage by the

Plaintiffs.

Under the Consumer Act, Articles 97 and 98 expressly provide for

liability arising out of defective products independent of any fault on

the part of the seller or manufacturer. The said provisions state:

ARTICLE 97. Liability for the Defective Products.

‘‘Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any
importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of fault,
for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting
from design, manufacture, construction, assembly and
erection, formulas and handling and making up,
presentation or packing of their products, as well as for the
insufficient or inadequate information on the use and
hazards thereof. A product is defective when it does not
offer the safety rightfully expected of it, taking relevant
circumstances into consideration, including but not limited
to:
a) presentation of product;
b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
c) the time it was put into circulation.

A product is not considered defective because another

better quality product has been placed in the market. The
manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall not be
held liable when it evidences:
a) that it did not place the product on the market;
b) that although it did place the product on the market

Page 5 of 7
 such product has no defect; that the consumer or a third
party is solely at fault.’’

(2) There is a high need to compel defendant to discontinue its’

product sales as well as to order recall of all their pail products

circulating in the market. Whenever a product is found to be injurious,

dangerous and unsafe, a manufacturer may be compelled to recall

such product pursuant to Art. 10 of the Consumer Act. The provision

states:

ARTICLE 10. Injurious, Dangerous and Unsafe Products.

‘‘Whenever the departments find, by their own initiative or
by petition of a consumer, that a consumer product is
found to be injurious, unsafe or dangerous, it shall, after
due notice and hearing, make the appropriate order for its
recall, prohibition or seizure from public sale or
distribution: Provided, That, in the sound discretion of the
department it may declare a consumer product to be
imminently injurious, unsafe or dangerous, and order its
immediate recall, ban or seizure from public sale or
distribution, in which case, the seller, distributor,
manufacturer or producer thereof shall be afforded a
hearing within forty eight (48) hours from such order.’’

A claim for failure to recall may be filed with the Department of

Trade and Industry or other concerned agencies pursuant to Art. 159 of

the Consumer Act Law. If there is a positive finding of failure to recall

products, the department Secretary may impose the proper and

corresponding penalties based on Art. 19. This provision primarily

imposes fines and imprisonment and other subsidiary liabilities.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of

this honorable court that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant

to pay the following damages to wit:

(1) Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000) representing actual, exemplary,

and penal damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000)

representing Attorney’s fees.

Page 6 of 7
 (2) Enjoining the Defendant, Imperial Bucket Corporation, to

discontinue selling and order recall of all steel buckets circulating

in the market.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.

Quezon City for Makati City; November 15, 2010.

ATTY. ANN ROSSELLE S. CORTES

Counsel for the Petitioner
185 Tandang Sora Avenue,
Old Balara, Quezon City
PTR No. XXXXXXX/01.04.2015/Quezon
City
IBP No. XXXXXX/0104.2014/Quezon City
Bar Roll No. XXXXX

Page 7 of 7