PLAINTIFFS TRIAL MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, through counsel, most respectfully alleges:

STATEMENTS OF FACTS:
1. Plaintiff is Jonna Bueno, 35 years old, married and a resident of 89 Little Baguio
St., San Juan City, Metro Manila. She is an accountant. On the other hand,
defendant is Gloria Supermart, Inc., located at Ortigas Avenue, San Juan, Metro
Manila.
2. Plaintiff has been a loyal customer of Gloria Supermart, Inc., buying her groceries
and other stuff for the past 20 years. Plaintiff alleges that her son suffered
excruciating pain when he slipped on a wet floor of Gloria Supermart by reason of
gross negligence by both the management and its employees.
3. Around 10:00 am on May 11, 2010, plaintiff together with Ricky, her 5-year old
son, went to Gloria Supermart to buy tomato sauce and other things they needed in
their house. When suddenly, a small ball rolled along the aisle, and Ricky ran after
it.
4. Afterwards, the plaintiff saw her son slipped with a heavy bang on a wet section
of the aisle, shrieking from pain in his right wrist. She immediately came to his side
to help him. A store clerk, whom she referred not friendly, helped her carry Ricky
to the car and bring him to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital. They were
entertained by Dr. John Lim, an orthopedic surgeon.
5. She also testified that she saw a puddle of liquid; specifically syrups seeped out
from a leaking bottle, on the floor where her son slipped.
6. It took about six weeks for Ricky to fully recover. During those six weeks span, he
experienced great pain at the beginning, and later with discomfort and difficulty in
using his both hands. On the other hand, Plaintiff also suffered from emotional pain
knowing the possibility of permanently losing her son because of the incident.
7. Plaintiff allegedly spent P22, 840.00 for doctors fee, hospitalization and
medicine; and approximately P5000.00 for toys to distract Ricky from the pain he is
suffering. Such statement was backed up with evidence of actual receipts of all
expenses incurred by the plaintiff.
8. Rene Castro, the defendants supermarket supervisor, did confirm seeing the
plaintiff in Gloria Supermart about 10:00am on May 11, 2010. He also mentioned
that plaintiff is indeed a loyal customer of the company.
9. In his testimony, he mentioned that he did saw a broken bottle of syrup spilled on
the floor. However, he alleged that the broken bottle was due to Rickys collision

from the shelf when he ran wild down the aisle, chasing after a loose ball. He was
not there when the incident occurred.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
1. Whether or not defendant is guilty of Attractive Nuisance over the incident
occurred during the abovementioned case.
2. Whether or not the plaintiff validly abated the nuisance when she files a
complaint before the Regional Trial Court
3. Whether or not the defendant committed negligence on their part of allowing a
minor to slip in their premises.
4. Whether or not defendant should be held liable for damages caused to the
petitioner

ARGUMENTS:
1. The defendant is guilty of Attractive Nuisance over the incident occurred in their
premises.
As defined by the law, Attractive Nuisance is one who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract
children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children
from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
years who is injured thereby, even if the child is a trespasser in the premises
(Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. vs Balandan, et al)
In the instant case, the small ball that rolled on the aisle of the supermart was the
very object which attracted the child, leading to the incident. The employees within
the vicinity failed to exercise ordinary care when they allowed such ball to roll on
the premises. They could have prevented the incident if they only acted with
prompt. It is to be expected from a well-known commercial establishment such as
the Gloria Supermart to have children of tender years curious of everything they
see. Thus, grocery clerks or staff should be well attentive and well-distributed within
the premises to prevent such accident to occur.
Furthermore, the puddle of syrup scattered on the floor which caused the child to
slip could also have been prevented if there were grocery clerks around the
premises to warn the people within sight of the impending danger it may cause. Or

better, there should have been grocery staff in charge of cleaning it up, preventing
the occurrence of the incident.
Therefore, defendant is guilty of Attractive Nuisance when they failed to exercise
ordinary care, causing injury to the child.
2.

3. The defendant was negligent on its employees part of allowing a minor to slip in
their premises because they failed to exercise reasonable care expected to them as
employees performing their regular duties.
As defined by law, Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Negligence
may consist of action or inaction. A person is negligent if he fails to act as an
ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances.
In the instant case, the incident could have been prevented if there were employees
within the premises who could have picked the ball up and put it back to its proper
place. Supermarket such as the Gloria Supermart should keep their eyes open for
things like loose balls running down on their aisles because it could easily attract
the attention of children, drawing them away from their parents. Same thing with
the puddle of syrup that was spilled all over the floor, employees in-charge could
have cleaned the mess and warned the nearby customers of the impending danger
it may cause. Nonetheless, the incident did occur, and none of the store clerks
acted with reasonable care.

4. Defendant should be held liable for the damages it had caused to the plaintiff.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that: Whoever by act or
omission cause damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damages done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by
the provisions of this Chapter.
In the instant case, the incident occurred inside the establishment of the defendant
and it happened due to the negligence on its employees to act with reasonable care
as to the performance of their regular days of work. Thus it falls under the definition
of Quasi-delict.

Article 2180 of our Civil Law further tells us that the obligation imposed by Article
2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible. 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. In the instant case, it is to be noted thats
It is therefore right for the plaintiff to demand payment for actual and moral
damages, the defendant had caused to the former.

PRAYER
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be
rendered in favor of the petitioner, ordering the defendant to pay the value as
stated in the complaint for the actual and moral damages it cause to the
complainant.
Plaintiff likewise prays for costs and for such other and further relief as this
honorable court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
Quezon City, Philippines, May 2011