Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Region
Branch ___, Quezon City

JONNA BUENO Civil Case No. 27-112011

Plaintiff, For Damages
- versus -
GLORIA SUPERMART, INC.
Defendant.
x---------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Jonna Bueno (hereinafter “Jonna”) filed the present action for damages against
Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc. (hereinafter “Gloria Supermart”). Jonna attributes the injuries
suffered by her minor son to Gloria Supermart’s gross negligence in failing to make its premises
safe for customers, thereby making it liable under Art. 2176 and Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
Defendant maintain that whatever injuries and expenses that were incurred by the Bueno family
can be attributed to Jonna’s failure to supervise her child.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. On May 11, 2010, Jonna and her minor child, 5-year old Ricky, went to Gloria
Supermart at around 10 a.m. in order to shop for groceries.
2. While negotiating the aisles in the supermarket, Ricky’s attention was captured by
a small red ball that was rolling on the floor. Being but a child of tender years, possessed of the
immature disposition of individuals of that age, it was no surprise that Ricky chased after the ball
down the aisle and away from Jonna.
3. It was at this point that Ricky suddenly slipped and fell because he had stepped on
a wet section of the aisle. Liquid syrup had seeped out from a bottle located on a nearby shelf
and had formed a puddle on the floor.
4. Jonna immediately rushed to her son’s side. Ricky was crying in pain and
pointing to his right wrist.
5. Jonna called for help as there were no nearby store clerks. Rene Cstro
(hereinafter “Rene”), the supermarket supervisor eventually came over from another aisle in
order to help out.
6. There were no signs and devices that would warn shoppers that an area of the
floor was wet. There were no nearby cleaners or janitors wiping up the liquid. In fact, the only
nearby Gloria Supermart personnel was Rene in the next aisle and even he seemed unaware that
a hazard existed on the other side of the shelves.
 7. With the aid of Rene, Jonna managed to bring her child to the Philippine
Orthopedic Hospital where Ricky was attended to by Dr. John Lim. Ricky was subjected to an
x-ray and it was discovered that surgery was necessary in order to restore the position of a
fractured bone in his right wrist.
8. Said surgery in fact took place and Ricky was thereafter required to stay overnight
at the hospital for purposes of pain management and care. He was discharged the following day.
9. Ricky recovered the full use of his hand only after a period of 6 weeks. In that
span of time, he moved with discomfort and difficulty, unable to use his hands.
10. Since the date of Ricky’s injury and even during his recuperation period, Jonna
suffered the mental anguish, fright and serious anxiety of a mother who was confronted with the
injury of a beloved child.
11. In addition to the physical suffering suffered by Ricky and the mental and
emotional strain on Jonna, they were further aggrieved because they had to spend P22,840.00 in
doctor’s fees, hospitalization expenses, and medicine, as evidenced by receipts, marked as
ANNEX ____.
12. On the other hand, Gloria Supermart, through Rene, claims that it exercised
proper diligence in making the premises safe and that ultimately Jonna was the one who failed to
supervise Ricky. It denied liability for all damages.

ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are presented
for discussion:
1. Whether or not Gloria Supermart may be held liable for the commission of a quasi
delict under Art. 2176 and Art, 2180 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether or not Gloria Supermart may be held liable for damages.

ARGUMENTS

I. Gloria Supermart is liable for the commission of a quasi delict that was the proximate
cause of Ricky’s injuries.

A. The proximate cause of the injuries that Ricky suffered was the negligence of
Gloria Supermart’s employees.
1. Art. 2176 provides that “whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for damage done.” In the case of Child
Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio (G.R. No. 150920, Nov. 25, 2005), the Supreme Court
stated that “in order to establish a quasi-delict case under this provision, the plaintiff must
prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the
fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose acts he must
respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and
damages incurred.” (supra)
2. All three conditions obtain in the present case.
3. It is undisputed that Ricky broke his wrist when he slipped and fell on a puddle
of liquid syrup that was on the floor of Gloria Supermart’s premises. It was the presence
of this syrup that was the proximate cause of Ricky’s injury. Proximate cause is defined
as “that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred.” (Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, Aug. 28, 2009). It
is submitted that Ricky would not have fallen and broke his wrist if he had not slipped on
the syrup.
4. The question now is, is his act of slipping on the syrup an accident or is the
syrup’s presence on the floor an act of negligence that may be attributed to Gloria
Supermart’s employees? If the proximate cause was an accident, clearly no liability can
attach to Gloria Supremart. On the other hand, if the proximate cause is the latter’s
negligence, it may properly held liable under the provisions of the Civil Code.
5. An accident pertains “to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence
attaches to the defendant. On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would do.” (Jarco Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129792, Dec. 21, 1999)
6. Applying the law to the present case, it is clear that Ricky’s injury was not caused
by accident. As earlier mentioned, Ricky broke his wrist because he slipped and fell due
to liquid syrup that was seeping from a bottle located on the supermarket shelves.
Clearly, the liquid should not have been on the floor as common sense would indicate
that it posed a threat to even the most careful of individuals walking past. Anybody
could have slipped and fallen on the syrup.
7. The mere presence of the syrup on the floor already negates Gloria Supermart’s
claim that it exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe. Based on its past
experience as admitted by Rene, similar accidents have previously occurred. Thus, it
could have easily foreseen that such an accident could happen again. Failure to take the
proper precautions in guarding against such a mishap is an act of negligence on the part
of Gloria Supermart’s employees.
8. Specifically, Rene, as store supervisor, could have been more vigilant in
patrolling the aisles for spills or the presence of similar hazards. He failed the test for
determining whether a person is negligent that was laid out by the Supreme Court in the
case of Philippine National Construction v. CA (G.R. No. 159270, Aug. 22, 2005). The
test in that case requires a person to act as a prudent man in a similar position and fails to
take the proper precautions against foreseeable harm. He has already had 5 years of
experience in handling the incidents of the supermarket and yet he did nothing.
9. Moreover, signs and warning devices which would inform shoppers that a hazard
was present were noticeably absent. This oversight evidences even the want of ordinary
care on the part of Rene and the other supermarket employees.
10. Rene and the other employees’ negligence in patrolling the aisles and placing
proper warning signs/devices is further supported by the fact that, as earlier mentioned: 1)
similar accidents often happen, and 2) they knew that children often accompany their
parents to the supermarket. Having advance notice of these facts, they cannot now claim
that Ricky’s injury was an unforeseeable accident.

B. Gloria Supermart may be held liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its
employees under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
 11. Art. 2180 provides that “the obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not
only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.” Said article further provides that “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.
12. Applying the foregoing to the present case, it is clear that Rene and other
employees on duty that day were at that time in the service of Gloria Supermart,
performing their regular functions and duties.
13. In order to escape liability for its employees’ negligent acts, Gloria Supermart
must show that it observed “the diligence of a a good father of the family” to prevent the
damage.
14. Unfortunately, Gloria Supermart has failed to show that it exercised such degree
of diligence in supervising Rene and the other employees. The testimonies on record do
not show that it was store policy to take extra precautions against spills and other mishaps
which occur in the ordinary course of a supermarket business. The testimonies on record
also indicate an absence of institutional concern for the safety and well being of children
that they knew often accompanied their parents in the store. In fact, Rene testified that
children were the sole responsibility of their parents. While this may be true to a certain
extent, considering that Art. 209 of the Civil Code provides that authority over minor
children are with the parents, Gloria Supermart could have, by exercising ordinary care,
prevented or at least minimized the possibility of mishaps occurring. The prevention and
removal of hazards like the syrup on the floor is a duty that falls squarely within its area
of responsibility. Moreover, children cannot be held to the same exacting standards of
diligence that are attributed to an adult. Children of tender years like Ricky, are
obviously at greater risk from hazards. Despite Gloria Supermart’s knowledge and
awareness of children’s presence on its premises, it did not exercise the diligence of a
good father of the family in making sure that it took extra care to supervise and instruct
its employees in minimizing the risk.
15. All told, it is evident that all the conditions of a quasi delict obtain in the present
case: Ricky suffered an injury which in the ordinary course of events would not have
happened had it not been for the negligence of Gloria Supermart’s employees in
preventing the occurrence of spillages and other ordinary store incidents and
subsequently, in not promptly cleaning up the spilled liquid syrup and in not placing
signs and other warning devices. Gloria Supermart itself was liable for the acts of its
employees because it failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in
making sure that it was company policy to take precautions against foreseeable accidents,
including those that would involve children. Assuming there was such a policy it was
negligent in supervising its employees to ensure that they adhered to such standards and
policies.

II. Gloria Supermart is liable for the payment of damages.

1. Art. 20 of the Civil Code provides that “every person who, contrary to law,
wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
Moreover, Art. 2176 also obliges the party responsible for the quasi delict to pay for the
damage done. Here, the negligence of Gloria Supermart has been clearly established.
Hence, it cannot escape liability for the payment of damages.
A. Gloria Supermart is liable for the payment of actual damages.
2. “Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensability for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.” (Art.
2199, Civil Code)
3. Jonna incurred P22,840 in doctor’s fees, hospitalization expenses and medicine,
which are properly documented by receipts (ANNEX “A”). These expenses would not
have been incurred had the accident not happened as a result of Gloria Supermart’s
negligence in making sure that its premises were safe and secure.
B. Gloria Supermart is liable for the payment of moral damages.
4. Moral damages include “physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury.” (Art. 2217, Civil Code) The article further provides that “though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.” (supra)
5. The facts bear out the claim that Jonna suffered mental anguish, fright and serious
anxiety when she saw her son injured and in pain. Her emotional and mental state is
directly connected with the fact that her son slipped, fell and broke his wrist due to the
negligence of Gloria Supermart and its employees.
6. A mother is naturally concerned over the health and well being of her child.
Hence, one can only imagine the suffering that she had to go through when she saw her
child slip and fall, undergo surgery and continue to suffer pain and discomfort for 6
weeks after he was discharged from the hospital.
7. Ricky himself had to endure a significant amount of physical suffering as a result
of his broken wrist. Moral damages can also be recovered for such injuries suffered as a
consequence of quasi delict because the law (Art. 2219, Civil Code) treats it as an
analogous circumstance to those instances in Art. 2217 for which moral damages may be
properly claimed.
8. Note that in addition to the pain he suffered on the day of the injury, such pain
lasted even up to 6 weeks after the surgery, during which time, he had limited range of
movement in his hands and was also forced to deal with a significant amount of
discomfort.
C. Even assuming there was also negligence on the part of Jonna, such was only
contributory and will not negate the award of damages.
9. The proximate cause of Ricky’s injury and the Bueno family’s subsequent
suffering is still Gloria Supermart’s negligence.
10. Hence, Gloria Supermart should still be primarily liable for the payment of
damages.
11. Assuming Jonna should have taken greater care in looking after Ricky, this still
does not make her negligence the proximate cause because an accident would still not
necessarily have occurred without the efficient intervening cause of the liquid on the
floor.
12. Contributory negligence, if there is any, will only serve to reduce the damages
that may be recovered by Jonna.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be

rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant by:
1) FINDING Gloria Supermart liable for the commission of negligent acts under
Art. 2176 & 2180 when it failed to maintain safe premises for its customers; causing
injury to Ricky.
2) ORDERING Gloria Supermart to pay both actual damages of P22,840, and
moral damages in an amount this Honorable Court finds just and reasonable under the
circumstances.

Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are likewise prayed
for.

Quezon City, November 27, 2011.

(Sgd.) ATTY. REX BELTRAN

Counsel for Plaintiff
Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

Copy furnished:
ATTY EMIL SUNGA
Counsel for Defendant

EXPLANATION

In view of time and manpower restrictions, the above Memorandum was served via
registered mail as personal service could not be availed of without causing undue hardship to
plaintiff.

(Sgd.) ATTY. REX BELTRAN

Counsel for Palintiff