MEMORANDUM

Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero

Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

Republic of the Philippines

12th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 14
Cotabato City

RICO SINAGASA
Plaintiff,

- versus –

BEN MINAMALAS TAXI

COMPANY and MANOY
KASKASERO,
Defendants.

CIVIL CASE No. 0003

For:

DAMAGES

x---------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THIS HONORABLE COURT,

defendants, through the undersigned counsel, submits this
Memorandum for the Defendants and states that:

1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.1On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed before this Honorable

Court a complaint for damages, premised on the ground that
the plaintiff suffered physical injuries caused by the defendant,
and that the latter failed to pay the demand for the expenses
incurred on medications and confinement;

1.2That the Defendant received a copy of the complaint on

December 18, 2019. However, there were no copy of summons
attached therein;

1|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

1.3That the Defendant filed his answer on December 27, 2019,

nine (9) days after he received the said complaint and that his
answer is timely filed within this Honorable Court and within
the fifteen (15) days required by the law;

1.4The complaint raised this issue: Whether or not the

defendants are liable to the plaintiff for damages amounting to
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for actual or
compensatory damages, One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P150,000.00) for loss of earning and income, One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for moral damages, Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for attorney’s fees,
and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for litigation
expenses.

2. THE PARTIES

2.1Defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi Company is a domestic

corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines
engaged in the business of land transportation of passengers
and a holder of certificate of public convenience with principal
place of business at Notre Dame Avenue, Cotabato City;

2.2Defendant Manoy Kaskasero is working under Ben Minamalas

Taxi Company as a driver of one of its taxi;

2.3Plaintiff Rico Sinagasa is a contractual engineer at ABC

Company.

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

3.1The plaintiff alleged that on December 5, 2019 at about 7:35 in

the morning, a passenger taxi owned by defendant Taxi
Company and driven by defendant Kaskasero hit plaintiff
Sinagasa while crossing the pedestrian lane;

3.2That alleged accident where claims arise are untrue. The truth
of the matter is that on December 5, 2019, Thursday, at about
7:35 in the morning, the area along Coland System
Technology, Inc. to Notre Dame – RVM College of Cotabato,
Sinsuat Avenue is crowded with students. The flow of traffic is
slow and traffic enforcers are present at every pedestrian lane
to guide the motorists and pedestrians. Hence, it is impossible
for the passenger taxi to hit the complainant with great impact
at high speeds as alleged in the Complaint;

2|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

3.3That the attached Medical Certicate in the complaint to prove

injury was maliciously obtained by the plaintiff. There was an
absence of evidentiary matter supporting it’s claim that there
were injuries sustained. The certification only stated that
there was medical examination conducted but did not
thoroughly describe the injuries sustained;

3.4That the documents attached in the complaint to prove the

expenses incurred were unsigned and/or otherwise fabricated
by the plaintiff. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that he
underwent surgery and monthly check-ups supported by mere
acknowledgement receipts. The receipts were even undated
and there is lack of substantial amount of details as to the
medications or services availed thereof;

3.5That the attached demand letter were not actually received by

either of the defendants and such letter was unsigned by the
Plaintiff;

3.6That there was failure to serve summons upon the defendants.

Such were not personally received by defendants or by any
person authorized by law to receive summons pursuant to
Section 18, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the Regional
Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendants; and

3.7 That the appearance of defendants before the court to

question its jurisdiction over their person is not tantamount to
voluntary submission to the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to
Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

4. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

4.1Whether or not defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi Company

should be held liable for damages to plaintiff Sinagasa, being
the employer of defendant Manoy Kaskasero;

4.2Whether or not defendant Manoy Kaskasero, as the driver,

should be held liable for damages to herein plaintiff;

4.3Whether or not plaintiff Sinagasa is entitled to any damages;

5. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

5.1Defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi Company is not liable for

damages to the plaintiff;

3|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

5.1.1 Herein Plaintiff would like to impress upon this

Honorable Court that Defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi
Company should be held liable under the Civil Code
because he is the employer of Manoy Kaskasero;

Article 2184 of the New Civil Code provides that:

“In a motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is

solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who
was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It isdisputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had
been found guilty of reckless driving or violating
traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.”

While Article 2180 of the New Civil Code reads:

“xxxx

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused

by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business
or industry.

xxxx

The responsibility treated of in this article shall

cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.”

5.1.2 Defendants, on the other hand, argues that the Article

2184 of the New Civil Code does not find any
applicability in this case because BEN MINAMAMALAS
TAXI COMPANY exerted due diligence to prevent the
misfortune by carefully and diligently selecting MANOY
KASKASERO as their employee;

5.1.3 Case law teaches that for an employer to have exercised

the diligence of a good father of a family, he should not
be satisfied with the applicant’s mere possession of a
professional driver’s license; he must also carefully

4|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

examine the applicant for employment as to his

qualifications, his experience and record of service;

5.1.4 Ben Minamalas Taxi Company has an employee-

mechanic, personally named Ronald Biaca, who
maintained the condition of the taxi driven by Manoy
Kaskasero. By way of practice, before Manoy Kaskasero
would embark on an errand, Ronald Biaca would
personally inspect, check, and ensure that the vehicle is
road worthy;

5.1.5 Further, Manoy Kaskasero has been a longtime driver for

Ben Minamalas Taxi Company, since 2010. During said
period, Manoy Kaskasero was never sanctioned for any
traffic violation nor was he involved in any vehicular
accident. As a matter of fact, he was an outstanding
employee of Ben Minamalas Taxi Company;

5.1.6 The subject of this case is the first time that Manoy
Kaskasero was ever involved in any vehicular accident.
Thus, there is no reason to believe that Ben Minamalas
Taxi Company should be held liable for damages because
the latter exerted due diligence in the selection of Manoy
Kaskasero and in the maintenance of the vehicle.

5.1.7 Granting without admitting that the collision happened

due to the negligence of Manoy Kaskasero, Ben
Minamalas Taxi Company, as the employer of the former,
should not be held liable for the negligent acts of the
former.

5.1.8 Here, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in

establishing fault or negligence on the part of the
defendant1. The presumption under in Article 2180 of
the New Civil Code has been disputed and defendants
have presented evidence to rebut said presumption as
there was no negligence on the part of the defendant Ben
Minamalas Taxi Company in the hiring and supervision
and that there is failure on the plaintiff to prove that the
employer remised to such duty.

5.1.9 Hence, defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi Company should

not be held liable for any damages.

5.2Defendant Manoy Kaskasero is not liable for damages;

5|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

5.2.1 Defendant Manoy Kaskasero is a holder of a Professional

Driver’s License Number M0-01-23456. He consistently
attended seminars for drivers; he always wear the
company’s uniform for taxi drivers; he and his co-drivers
always read the guidelines of the company before
working, as it is posted outside its premises. Thus, there
is a presumption that he possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications to be employed as the
professional driver of defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi
Company.

5.2.2 In fact and in fine, the plaintiff, was himself negligent in

his act of suddenly crossing on the front of the taxi
driven by Manoy. As it was stated, the taxi move so slow
as was traffic hours on that time;

Article 2179 of the New Civil Code reads as follows:

“When the plaintiff’s negligence was the

immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.”

5.2.3 Further, it cannot be said that the accident was due to

the lack of due care and diligence of Manoy Kaskasero.
As stated above, MANOY exercised due diligence while
driving the vehicle because of his experience and
expertise and the circumstances revolving the facts of
this case;

5.2.4 The underlying precept on contributory negligence is

that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own
injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full
but must bear the consequences of his own negligence.
The defendant must thus be held liable only for the
damages actually caused by his negligence;

5.2.5 Defendant Kaskasero was very careful in driving on

December 5, 2019, Thursday at about 7:35 in the
morning, in the area of Coland System Technology Inc. to
Notre Dame-RVM College of Cotabato, Sinsuat Avenue is
crowded with students. The flow of the traffic is slow and
traffic enforcers are present at every pedestrian lane to

6|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

guide the motorist and pedestrians. Hence, it is

impossible for the passenger taxi to hit the complainant
with great impact. Such can be proven by the testimony
of the passenger of the taxi Leni;

5.2.6 Moreover, Defendant Kaskasero always gave audible

signal by sounding the horn, and gave visible signal
every time he moved forward as there is ongoing traffic
on that day because it is pick hours as the students were
in hurry in going to school;

Section 44 of R.A. No. 4136 provides:

“Section 44.Signals on starting, stopping or turning-

(a) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before

starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, shall
first see that such movement can be made in safety,
and if any pedestrian may be affected by such
movement, shall give a clearly audible signal by
sounding the horn, and whenever the operation of
any other vehicle approaching or following may be
affected by such movement, shall give a signal
plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicles of
the intention to make such movement.

(b) The signal herein required shall be given by

means of extending the hand and arm beyond the
left side of the vehicle, or by an approved
mechanical or electrical signal device.”

5.2.7 In this case, defendant exercise the extra ordinary

diligence required by law to a common carrier, therefore
he must not be held liable.

5.3Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages;

5.3.1 The plaintiff prayed to this Honorable court the

following:

i. Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for

actual or compensatory damages;
ii. One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) for
loss of earning and income;
iii. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for
moral damages;

7|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

iv. Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for

attorney’s fees; and
v. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for
litigation expenses.

5.3.2 As discussed above, the proximate cause of the alleged

injuries sustained by the plaintiff was due to his own
negligence or ill motives. He was deemed to have
waived his own safety and thus has assumed the risk that
the might get injured because of his act. He should thus
not be allowed to pass on the blame to the defendants for
his negligent act pursuant to the principle of unjust
enrichment to the detriment of the defendants;

5.3.3 Indeed, the law provides that "A passenger must observe
the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to
himself”2 , which means that if the injury to the passenger
has been  proximately caused by his own negligence, the
carrier cannot be held liable. This finds applicability in
this case because of the negligence of the plaintiff and the
fault cannot be attributed to Defendant Kaskasero, or to
his employer, Ben Minamalas Taxi Company;

5.3.4 The claim for actual damages is without basis both

fact and in law. The official receipts are undated, there
is a lack of substantial amount of details as to the
medications availed of, and is merely a certification of
what the complaint paid. The certification only stated
that there was medical examination conducted but did
not thoroughly describe the injuries sustained .The
attached demand letter were not actually received by
either of the defendants and such letter was unsigned by
the Plaintiff. All these are proofs that the documents
submitted by the plaintiff were maliciously obtained;

5.3.5 In the case of Maritime Factors Inc. v. Hindang, the

Supreme Court held that: Court held that:

“…the alleged translated medical report was not even

signed by Dr. Hameed which creates doubt as to its
authenticity. The unsigned translated medical report is
nothing but a self-serving document which ought to be
treated as a mere scrap of paper devoid of any evidentiary
value even in administrative proceedings.”

2
Article 1761, New Civil Code

8|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

5.3.6 In the case of Philippine National Bank v. Court of

Appeals and Flores, the Supreme Court said that:

“A written and signed acknowledgment that money has

been paid or goods have been delivered. A receipt is
merely presumptive evidence and is not conclusive.

A written acknowledgment that money or a thing of value

has been received. Since a receipt is a mere
acknowledgment of payment, it may be subject to
explanation or contradiction. A receipt may be used as
evidence against one just as any other declaration or
admission. A simple receipt not under seal is presumptive
evidence only and may be rebutted or explained by other
evidence of mistake in giving it, or of non-payment or of
the circumstances under which it was given.”

5.3.7 The plaintiff has also no bases for claiming 150,000 for
allegedly loss of earning capacity ,as stated above he was
the proximate cause of his alleged injury. Even assuming
for the sake argument that he suffered injury, he did not
proved it that it is serious. Again, the taxi driven by
Manoy moved so slowly on the time and place stated in
the complaint, and he observed extraordinary diligence;

5.3.8 Plaintiff is also not entitled for moral damaged because it

has no bases both fact and in Law. In order that moral
damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and
proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the
like. When the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he
suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings and moral shock, he should prove that he
purportedly suffered to sustain his claim for moral
damages. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be
substantiated by clear and convincing proof;

5.3.9 With respect to the plaintiff claims for attorneys fees and
litigation expenses, Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows
attorney’s fess to be awarded by a court when its
claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to
incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an
unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is
sought. While judicial discretion is here extant, an award
thereof demands, nevertheless, a factual, legal or

9|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

equitable justification. The matter cannot and should not

be left to speculation and conjecture;

5.3.10 Article 19 of the New Civil Code is explicit when it

stated that “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
Thus, to allow the plaintiffs to recover damages from the
defendants, who were merely in the exercise of their
rights, despite the clear negligence of the deceased
would only injustice;

5.3.11 Therefore, even though the plaintiff suffered injury , it

still does not warrant a claim for damages when clearly
the alleged injured himself caused such damages against
himself. Besides it is the defendant who shall be entitled
for damages because the compliant is baseless.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto

this Honorable Court:

a. To dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the

person of the defendant and for lack of cause of action;

b. To dismiss the complaint for utter lack of merit and for

being baseless;

c. To order the plaintiff to pay the defendant Php 50,000 for

the attorney’s fee, Php 200,000 for moral damages and Php 100,000 for
exemplary damages; and

d. To grant other relief just and equitable under the

circumstances.

Cotabato City, Philippines. January 22, 2020.

Assisted by:

ALICE MONTERO
Counsel for the Defendants
KILLER Bldg., Magallanes St., 9600 Cotabato City
Roll of Attorney No. 14141

10 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

MCLE Compliance No. V-0012345 valid until 4/20/2022

PTR No. 246810/01.04.20/Cotabato City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 022222

VERIFICATION

I, Ben Minamalas Taxi Company, a domestic corporation duly

organized under the laws of the Philippines engaged in the business of
land transportation of passengers and a holder of certificate of public
convenience with principal place of business at Notre Dame Avenue,
Cotabato City.

1) That I am one of the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2) That I caused the preparation of this Memorandum;

3) I have read and understood the contents thereof and the

allegations stated therein are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day

of January 2020 at Cotabato City, Philippines.

BEN MINAMALAS
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22 nd of January 2020

at Cotabato City with affiant exhibiting to me his Professional Driver’s
License Number M0-02-1110045 issued on March 17, 2018 at Cotabato
City.

JAMES ARTHUR YU
Notary Public
Commission Expires December 31, 2020
Roll of Attorney No. 88888
PTR No. 233450/01.05.20/Cotabato City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 224466
Doc. No. 5
Page No. 1

11 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

Book No. I
Series of 2020

VERIFICATION

I, Manoy Kaskasero, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident

of Bagua, Cotabato City, Philippines.

1) That I am one of the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2) That I caused the preparation of this Memorandum;

3) I have read and understood the contents thereof and the

allegations stated therein are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day

of January 2020 at Cotabato City, Philippines.

MANOY KASKASERO
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22 nd of January 2020

at Cotabato City with affiant exhibiting to me his Professional Driver’s
License Number M0-01-23456 issued on February 14, 2019 at Cotabato
City.

JAMES ARTHUR YU
Notary Public
Commission Expires December 31, 2020
Roll of Attorney No. 88888
PTR No. 233450/01.05.20/Cotabato City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 224466

Doc. No. 6
Page No. 1

12 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

Book No. I
Series of 2020

PROOF OF SERVICE AND EXPLANATION

Service of this pleading was done thru personal service.

ALICE MONTERO
Counsel for the Defendants

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Maine Mendoza

Counsel for the Plaintiff
3rd floor, Mondragon Bldg.,
Macapagal St., Cotabato City

13 | P a g e