Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Region
Quezon City
Civil Case No. 221100
Joan Cruz, Plaintif
-VersusRoyal Supermarket, Inc.,
Plaintifs Memorandum
The Case
Plaintifs Memomarandum
Paintif by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:

Arguments on the memorandum as follows

1. Art 2179
2. Attractive Nuisance
3. Knocking ok shelves

For Mooting:
Greetings: Should it please this Honorable Court, I am
________________________,counsel and with me is ___________________________
co-counsel.
Together we appear for the paintif, Joan Cru, your honor.
The Case:
A complaint was filed against Royal Supermarket, Inc. by our client for the
physical, moral, and emotional damages incurred after her son slipped on a
wet floor in royal supermarket where the plaintif had done her shopping
together with her son.

Your Honor, we present before this court the following issues that hold the
defendant- Royal Supermarket - liable for the damages incurred.
1. Art 2176- whoever by act or omission causes damages to another,
their being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damages done.
Ratio:
Basing from Article 44 paragraph 3 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Royal supermarket Inc. is classified as juridical
person- which has rights and obligations and also has the
susceptibility to be sued of their rights and obligations as
circumstances arise.
As a juridical person this entity has the rights over their
supermarket, as well as the obligations to their employees and
customers when it comes to proper wages, safety and security
respectively.
The wet floor on one of the aisles of Royal Supermart that had
contributed to the immediate and proximate cause of the
plaintifs son to slip which lead to the injury, clearly exhibits
negligence or res ipsa loquitor. This shows that there was a
lapse or negligence on the part of the employee to maintain
safety in the premises; and negligence on the part of the
employee, by command responsibility and according to Art. 2180
of the civil code, is also negligence on the part of the
management of the supermarket as well as its administrators.
Thus Royal Supermart Inc., should indemnify all the expenses of
the plaintif as well as pay for the damages incurred therein.

2. Art 694 A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business,

condition of property or anything else which:
(1)Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; xxx
xxx xxx
Ratio:
As we can see from Article 694 of the Civil Code, nuisance covers
a very wide range of things. What is important to note however, is that
a nuisance ultimately causes injury or potentially endangers the health
or safety of others.
In the case of a supermarket, which is usually publicly available
to the masses, nuisances would include dangerously stacked items
that could fall on shoppers, hazards on the floor that could cause
slippage and such, as well as anything that could entice a child to run
around and play in said premises.
In our plaintifs case, it was a ball that had happened to roll
across the aisle that took the attention of the Biboy (plaintifs son).
Being a mere 5 years old, such a child would be expected to chase
after said ball. In the act of chasing this ball, the child ran through a
section of floor that had fluids on it. After which, and because he was
just a child, he slipped and landed on his right wrist. The resulting
accident caused him to sufer a broken bone within the same wrist.
In this situation, we can see that there were 2 nuisances that had
efected the accident. The first nuisance was the ball that had rolled
across the aisle. This ball had attracted the attention of the child and
induced him chase it, thus making it an Attractive Nuisance. The
second nuisance was the existence of the fluids on the aisle floor. This
is considered as a condition of the property (Slippery floor) which
causes injury or endangers the health or safety of others (Biboy).

Rebuttal:
1. It is the obligation and the duty of the supermarket to ensure safety
and security of their premises and not the plaintif. Clearly there is

no negligence on the part of the plaintif. But undeniably and

undoubtedly there is negligence on Royal Supermarkets part.
2. Considering that ball withing their premises it is the responsibility of
the supermart to keep a .
3. (Wa ko kahibalo hehehe