Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Group 8

LEGAL WRITING CLASS Atty. Jose Teodorico Molina Annulment of Marriage


Page 1 of 5

Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT


National Capital Judicial Region
Manila, Branch 1

PETER BANAG,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 2436
- versus -

ARTHUR SISON,
Defendant,
x----------------------------------x

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum


in the case:

The Case

Plaintiff, Peter Banag filed this action against defendant


Arthur Sison, for the injuries that his daughter, Mary
suffered due to the latters dog attack and bites. Mr.
Banag claims Php 20,000.00 damages against Mr. Sison
for the psychological and emotional trauma and pain that
his daughter suffered.

The Facts

Peter Banag, the plaintiff is the father of Mary. Mary who


is six years old went to Arthur Sisons house to buy ice-
candies. Fred Puzon, a concerned neighbor testified for the
plaintiff that he personally saw the following incident:
That, at around 3:00PM of September 12, Fred saw Mary
approached Arthur's gate and knocked to buy ice-candies.
When nobody responded, she tested and tried to push the gate
and it yielded. The dog jumped out and attacked her from
behind as she turned and ran to leave, biting her on the legs
and arms as she fell to the ground.
Group 8
LEGAL WRITING CLASS Atty. Jose Teodorico Molina Annulment of Marriage
Page 2 of 5

Fred come into rescue by kicking the dog away, stood


and protected her from further dog attacks, as the dog
continued barking as if ready to attack again.
Arthur, came out of his house and sent his dog into his
yard. He picked Mary up and brought Mary to a nearby clinic
for treatment.

The defendant, Arthur Sison who is the owner of the ice-


candy store and the dog alleged that he cannot grant the
demand of the plaintiff to pay Php 20,000.00. He claims that
he should not be blamed for the accident that happened to
Mary, pointing out that he had exercised proper diligence in
making its premises safe for its customers by putting a
warning sign at the gate and that the accident was something
Mary and her parents had contributed to the cause of the
accident should any adult had accompanied the child in going
outside their home. Sison further stated that he was the one
who brought Mary to the nearby clinic for treatment and paid
the medical bills.

The Issues

1. Whether or not Arthur Sison exercised proper diligence in


making its premises safe for its customers.
2. Whether or not Marys accident was through her own
contributory negligence;
3. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the damages that
he is claiming for.

Arguments

I.
ARTHUR SISON DID NOT EXERCISED PROPER
DILIGENCE IN MAKING ITS PREMISES SAFE FOR ITS
CUSTOMERS.

Sison on his letter addressed to Peter Banag, (Exh. A)


admitted that he has been selling ice-candies at the gate of his
house but further claims that his gate has an automatic
closer. However, he also admitted that at times he would left
the gate unlocked from the inside for his children coming in
and out.
Group 8
LEGAL WRITING CLASS Atty. Jose Teodorico Molina Annulment of Marriage
Page 3 of 5

In the case of Philippine National Construction Corporation


v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467
SCRA 569;

Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe for the


protection of the interests of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.

The elements of simple negligence: are (1) that there is lack of


precaution on the part of the offender;

The standard test in determining whether a person is negligent


in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or
property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the
person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person
injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued?
If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or
to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the
failure to do so constitutes negligence
xxx xxx xxx

First, in the above scenario, considering that Arthur was


selling ice-candies, it is well-established that majority of his
market are obviously kids in the neighborhood. However, at
the time the accident happened, Arthur lacks prudence when
for his own convenience, left his gate unlocked so that when
his kids get in and out of his house, his nap will not be
distracted.
Arthur, being also a father would have thought of how
kids in the neighborhood can freely roam around the area.
Buying simple stuff from a nearby small stores like his is just
but normal. When he thought of taking a nap, it is most likely
that he wanted to have a complete rest; that is why he had left
the gate open just in case his kids will need to go in and out of
his gate. If he was prudent enough, he should have thought of
either closing his store for a while or at least to put the dog on
a secured cage or bind the dog to a safe place. Here, neither of
the above precautionary measures was not done nor
considered. Thus, Arthur was negligent in maintaining his
premises safe for his customers.

II.
Group 8
LEGAL WRITING CLASS Atty. Jose Teodorico Molina Annulment of Marriage
Page 4 of 5

NO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF


MARY AND HIS PARENTS.
First, on Arthurs argument about the written warning
about the presence of the dog does not suffice the fact that he
indeed was exercising utmost precautions.
In the book of Philippine Law on Torts and Damages vol.
2 by J. Cesar S. Sangco on page 10 reads the wild beast
theory:
In England a similar principle is laid down in Ryland v.
Fletcher, where justice Blackburn said: We think that the rule of
law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land
collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes
must keep it at his peril, and if, he does not do so is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of
its escape
xxx xxx xxx

In the doctrine of the wild beast theory, it is said to be an


absolute liability thus, unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove
that negligence was contributory. Thus, the defense of
defendant for taking all possible precaution is futile.
Furthermore, let us suppose we will accept the fact that there
was a sign on the gate, sign is not enough if the dog itself is on
the loose and can just attack anyone at any rate.

Second, on the argument that Mary would have been


accompanied by an adult in going out of their home, thus her
parents has no right to claim for damages due to contributory
negligence,

PRAYER
Group 8
LEGAL WRITING CLASS Atty. Jose Teodorico Molina Annulment of Marriage
Page 5 of 5

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that


judgment issue against the defendant:

1. Declaring null and void the marriage contract entered


into by and between plaintiff and defendant on June 5,
2013, before the Municipal City of Manila, Philippines.

Manila, Philippines. October 29, 2017.

Atty. Michael Angelo L. Memoracion


Atty. John Maxwell Mendoza
Atty. Ma. Victoria Lazo
Atty. Dianne Poloyapoy
Atty. Marilyn Delos Santos
Counsel for Plaintiff
Roll No. 1234.
IBP Receipt No. 56487
Ptr.No. 876
MCLE Comp. No.765

Infante Law and Associates


234 ABC Bldg., Taft Ave.,
Manila, Philippines
Email: memoracion@gmail.com
Telephone No.: 9876003