ANGELICA MENESES

Legal Writing
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc., by counsel, respectfully submits
this memorandum as follows:
Statement of the Case
Jonna Bueno (Jonna) led an action for dama!es of "##,### $%$
a!ainst Gloria Supermart, Inc. (GSI) before the &e!ional 'rial (ourt of
)ue*on (ity for the physical in+uries of her son, &ic,y, su-ered at the
defendant.s supermar,et, for the medical e/penses and the emotional
an!uish that it brou!ht to him and his mother.
Statement of the Facts
0. $lainti- Jonna Bueno testied that at appro/imately 0#12 on
2ay 00, 3#0#, she and her 4e5year5old son, &ic,y, were shoppin! for
!roceries at Gloria Supermart.
3. In her account of the se6uence of e4ents, Jonna stated that a
small ball rolled alon! the aisle, and &ic,y, as a child would, chased the
mo4in! ob+ect. 1s per her statement, after her son tra4eled some
distance from where she stood, Jonna witnessed him slippin! on the
aisle.s wet 7oor and crashin! down with a hea4y ban!. &ic,y then
shrie,ed from pain in his ri!ht wrist, which he used to stop his fall.
8. She testied that she saw a puddle on the 7oor where &ic,y
was situated. She claimed that the li6uid formin! the puddle was
seepin! out from a lea,in! bottle in a nearby shelf.
9. Jonna then brou!ht &ic,y to the $hilippine :rthopedic %ospital.
%ere, &ic,y recei4ed dia!nosis and treatment for a wrist fracture. %e
stayed o4erni!ht at the medical facility and reco4ered in si/ wee,s.
". Durin! this span of time, Jonna and her husband spent 33,;9#
$%$ in medical e/penses, includin! doctor.s fee, hospitali*ation, and
medicine. She also incurred e/penses of appro/imately ",### $%$ for
toys that were used to distract &ic,y from the pain he su-ered. %er son
e/perienced !reat discomfort and depression, while she herself claims
to ha4e su-ered from mental stress.
ANGELICA MENESES
Legal Writing
<. 1t the time of the incident, Defendant =itness &ene (astro,
supermar,et super4isor for Gloria Supermart, was also at the store. %e
was placin! new stoc,s of noodles on their respecti4e shel4es. =hen
he heard the commotion one aisle away, he dropped his tas, and
rushed to the scene.
>. %e, too, saw a puddle on the 7oor where the child lay. (ontrary
to Jonna.s testimony, howe4er, he asserts that the puddle was from the
items that had fallen from a nearby shelf. 'hese items included one
!lass bottle that bro,e and spilled its contents onto the 7oor.
;. (astro then carried &ic,y to his mother.s car and accompanied
mother and child to the $hilippine :rthopedic %ospital.
Issues
'he issues to be resol4ed are the followin!.
0. =hether or not the mana!ement and employees of GSI displayed
!ross ne!li!ence in ensurin! the safety of their customers within
their premises
3. =hether or not GSI is liable for dama!es resulted from &ic,y.s
physical in+uries
8. =hether or not the plainti- is entitled to reco4er dama!es
Discussions
I.
GSI was not grossl negligent in !ee"ing their store safe for
customers.
'o determine the e/istence of ne!li!ence on the part of the
defendant, it is essential to rst establish how the law denes
ne!li!ence. 'he Supreme (ourt, in Jarco 2ar,etin! (orporation 4. (ourt
of 1ppeals, 830 S(&1 8>", reiterated the classic statement of what
ne!li!ence is.
?e!li!ence is the omission to do somethin! which a
reasonable man, !uided by those considerations which
ordinarily re!ulate the conduct of human a-airs, would do,
or doin! of somethin! which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. ///
ANGELICA MENESES
Legal Writing
Jonna contends that supermar,et mana!ement and sta- must be
held responsible for ne!li!ence, as they should ha4e been alert of the
nuisances they maintained. 'hey ar!ue that they are at fault for failin!
to clear the area of items that draw children away from their parents,
li,e the loose ball that rolled down the aisle, and ha*ards that could
+eopardi*e the safety of the customers, such as the puddle on the 7oor
from carelessly spilled li6uids.
It follows that the indicator of ne!li!ence in the case at bar is the
defendant.s maintenance of nuisances.
1rticle <@9 of the (i4il (ode denes a nuisance as an act,
omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anythin!
else that, for one, in+ures or endan!ers the health or safety of others.
In %idal!o Anterprises, Inc. 4. Balandan, et al, @0 $hi 9;;, attracti4e
nuisances were dened as dan!erous instrumentalities or appliances of
a character li,ely to attract children in play. %owe4er, nuisances are
considered as such if maintained with the absence of the e/ercise of
ordinary care.
In the present case, neither the ball nor the puddle could be
considered as attracti4e nuisances. GSI obser4ed ordinary care in
maintainin! its store.
'he ball could not ha4e been amon! the merchandise in one of
the store.s !rocery aisles, where they would display, naturally, !rocery
items, not toys. It could not ha4e rolled down the aisle from ine-ecti4e
stac,in! or any acti4ity the employees do in their e4eryday course of
duty.
'he store could not ha4e warned customers of the puddle on the
7oor, in the possible e4ent that it was not there prior to the child.s
accident. (astro presents this possibility in his testimony:
): =hat else did you seeB
1: Some items from a nearby shelf had fallen down the
7oor.
): =hat were these itemsB
1: 'here were a couple of bottles of syrup, mostly in plastic
bottles, e/cept one !lass bottle that had bro,en and spilled
part of its contents on the 7oor.
): 'o what do you account thisB
1: I could infer from the position of &ic,y that he bumped
into the shelf containin! syrup bottles and ,noc,ed o-
some of them.
ANGELICA MENESES
Legal Writing
By the mere possibility of this circumstance, this eliminates one
re6uisite for the application of res ipsa loquitur C the accident bein!
caused by an a!ency or instrumentality within the e/clusi4e
mana!ement or control of the person char!ed with the ne!li!ence
complained of. 'his possibility shows that the circumstances of the
incident were not under GSI.s sole and absolute power to implement or
pre4ent. :ther possible causes to a similar accident e/ist beyond the
control of the defendant. A/amples include the accidental brea,a!e of
syrup bottles at the precise time of the incident, trippin! on a random
customer, !ettin! pushed aside by human andDor cart traEc, and
collision with other children.
It can be ar!ued that (astro was merely speculatin!, because he
was at another aisle when the incident happened and could not ha4e
seen e/actly how the puddle on the 7oor came to be. ?onetheless, the
same can be said about the mother.s statement C she did not see her
child fall until the e/act moment he slammed onto the 7oor, from a
distance where it is 6uestionable that she can ascertain with ease that
the spot he slipped on was wet prior to the incident. %er testimony
4alidates this.
): Do you remember anythin! unusual that happened
while you and &ic,y were pic,in! up !roceries at the
shel4esB
1: Fes, a small ball rolled alon! the aisle and &ic,y ran after
it.
): =as he able to catch the ballB
1: ?o. 1lthou!h &ic,y had !one some distance down the
aisle from where I stood, I saw him slip with a hea4y ban!
on a wet section of the aisle.
1s ruled in (hild Gearnin! (enter, Inc. 4. 'a!orio, 9>< S(&1 38<,
in e4ery tort case under 1rticle 30>< of the (i4il (ode, the plainti- has
to pro4e by a preponderance of e4idence, amon! others, the fault or
ne!li!ence of the defendant, and the connection of cause and e-ect
between the fault or ne!li!ence and the dama!es incurred. %ere, Jonna
failed to establish suEcient e4idence of such ne!li!ence.
Hrom this, it can be !athered that the defendant did not commit
!ross ne!li!ence in maintainin! the safety of their premises, or at the
4ery least, such !ross ne!li!ence is not suEciently pro4en.
II.
ANGELICA MENESES
Legal Writing
GSI is not lia#le for $amages.
'he pro4isions of 1rticle 30;# of the (i4il (ode include that the
owners and mana!ers of an establishment or enterprise are li,ewise
responsible for dama!es caused by their employees in the ser4ice of
the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of
their functions. %owe4er, this all relies on liability under 1rticle 30><,
as pro4ided:
1rt. 30;#. 'he obli!ation imposed by 1rticle 30>< is
demandable not only for one.s own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
/// /// ///
1rticle 30><, which denes liability by 6uasi5delict, states:
1rt. 30><. =hoe4er by act or omission causes dama!e to
another, there bein! fault or ne!li!ence, is obli!ed to pay
for the dama!e done. Such fault or ne!li!ence, if there is
no pre5e/istin! contractual relation between the parties, is
called a 6uasi5delict and is !o4erned by the pro4isions of
this (hapter.
:nce more, for liability to be established, there must be pro4en
the e/istence of fault or ne!li!ence on the part of the defendant. In the
case at bar, the defendant was not maintainin! attracti4e nuisances,
and the puddle, supposedly the in+ury.s pro/imate cause, was not
pro4en to be a result of their ne!li!ence or imprudence alone. Because
of this, they cannot be held liable for dama!es the plainti- sustained.
III.
%onna is not entitle$ to reco&er $amages.
Jonna is demandin! compensation for actual and moral dama!es,
in total amountin! to "##,### $%$.
Inder 1rticle 30@@ of the (i4il (ode, one is entitled to an
ade6uate compensation, only for such pecuniary loss su-ered. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory dama!es. 'he
plainti- has duly pro4en the e/penses she incurred from payin! for her
son.s medical bills. Should GSI be held liable for dama!es, Jonna can
reco4er the amount spent for actual dama!es.
:n the other hand, she cannot reco4er moral dama!es
amountin! to the sum she see,s to claim. =hile 1rticle 330> of the
ANGELICA MENESES
Legal Writing
(i4il (ode lists mental an!uish, fri!ht, and serious an/iety as e/amples
of moral dama!e, in the case in 6uestion, there is no +ustication of the
award demanded bein! proportional to the in+uries su-ered. 'he
Supreme (ourt stated the purpose of moral dama!es in Gor*ano 4.
'abaya!, G.&. ?o. 0;@<9>, as follows:
2oral dama!es are not intended to enrich the complainant
at the e/pense of the defendant. &ather, these are awarded only
to enable the in+ured party to obtain Jmeans, di4ersions or
amusementsK that will ser4e to alle4iate the moral su-erin! that
resulted by reason of the defendant.s culpable action. 'he
purpose of such dama!es is essentially indemnity or reparation,
not punishment or correction. In other words, the award thereof
is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the
spiritual status quo anteL therefore, it must always reasonably
appro/imate the e/tent of in+ury and be proportional to the
wron! committed.
Jonna presented e4idence of e/penses from ha4in! to distract
her son from the pain he su-ered. =hat, then, of the mental stress
Jonna su-ered from seein! her only son hurtB $rimary responsibility
o4er a non5emancipated child belon!s to his parents. Jonna herself
ac,nowled!es this responsibility when she was 6uestioned.
): But when you too, him there, you of course are aware
that the supermar,et did not ha4e a lea4e5your5child
ser4iceB
1: Fes, Sir.
): (onse6uently, you were aware that the responsibility for
loo,in! after &ic,y.s needs and safety while in the
supermar,et is primarily in your hands as his motherB
1: Fes, Sir, but supermar,ets always e/pect children to
come with their parents and so it has to ma,e sure that the
place is safe for children.
): But do you a!ree that, as his mother, he is safer when
he stays by your side in a public place li,e a supermar,etB
1: Fes, Sir.
): Still, you let him slip away from your control, when he
ran after that ballB
1: Fes, Sir, but the supermar,et should ,eep their eyes
open for thin!s li,e loose balls runnin! down their aisles,
drawin! children away from their parents, and lettin! them
slip on carelessly spilled li6uids.
Inder 1rticle 3# of the Hamily (ode, this authority and
responsibility may not be renounced or transferred e/cept in cases
authori*ed by law. A4en within the supermar,et.s premises, Jonna
cannot hold the supermar,et.s mana!ement or its sta- principally
accountable for the welfare of her son, because such accountability is
inherently hers as his parent and desi!nated !uardian.
ANGELICA MENESES
Legal Writing
By allowin! her child of tender a!e to run down the aisle without
her super4ision, allowin! him to reach a considerable distance from
where she stood, there is a clear display of contributory ne!li!ence on
Jonna.s part.
=ith contributory ne!li!ence established, the lin!erin! le!al
6uestion may now be answered. Inder 1rticle 30>@ of the (i4il (ode,
when the plainti-.s ne!li!ence was only contributory, the plainti- may
reco4er dama!es, but the courts shall miti!ate the dama!es to be
awarded. 1rticle 3309 further supports this. A4en in 6uasi5delict cases,
the contributory ne!li!ence of the plainti- shall reduce the dama!es
that she may reco4er. 'he Supreme (ourt held in ?ational $ower
(orporation 4. %eirs of ?oble (asionan, ">3 S(&1 >0, that the
underlyin! precept on contributory ne!li!ence is that a plainti- who is
partly responsible for his own in+ury should not be entitled to reco4er
dama!es in full, but must bear the conse6uences of his own
ne!li!ence.
'raer
=herefore, premises considered, defendant Gloria Supermarts, Inc
respectfully prays the (ourt to:
0. Declare the defendant not liable for in+uries sustained by
plainti-.s sonL
3. 'hereby dismiss this case for lac, of meritL and
8. Deny the plainti-.s demand for the defendant to pay her "##,###
$%$ in dama!es