Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Regional Trial Court
Branch ____, _________

SPOUSES DANILO AND MYRA BENITEZ

Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. ________________

GEORGE DELA CRUZ

Defendant

x ——————————- x

DEFENDANT’S POSITION PAPER

DEFENDANT, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully

submit this position paper, and state:

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Defendant, George “Mang Jojo” Dela Cruz is the ‘katiwala’ of Don Juan
de Espadaña in Hacienda ____________ situated in ______________. The hacienda
is a private owned property and is not open to the public; it is a home to different
species of animals, some are common, and a few are rare and wild kinds, col-
lected and adopted by Don Juan for his personal enjoyment. This fact is known
to the townspeople of _____________. Each animal has its own respective enclos-
ing, and unless otherwise instructed, defendant make sure that the animals re-
main in their respective cages at all times.

On ____________, upon instruction of Don Juan, defendant released a snap-

ping turtle which Don Juan recently bought from abroad, in the pond inside the
hacienda. It was done upon recommendation of the resident veterinarian of the
hacienda, Dr. Mariane Orense, after observing that the turtle became lethargic
and sickly. Dr. Orense’s assessment was that the turtle was becoming sickly due
to the sudden change in its environment. Since it used to roam in a wide area, it
became stressed when it was suddenly encaged in a limited surrounding. The vet
then advised that it would be best to allow the turtle to wander in a more spacious
surrounding.

Prior the release of the turtle, defendant put up warning signages in the
area, photos of which are hereto attached, and also warned all the employees
to observe caution whenever they’d traverse the area near the pond.

On _____________, while Mang Jojo was doing his daily visits of the animals,
he heard a child’s voice shouting for help. He rushed to the pond where the voice
was coming and there found BumBum submerged in the pond and shouting “Ki-
nagat ako! Kinagat ako!” He came to the rescue of BumBum at once and when
he pulled him out of the water, they noticed bites and scratches in the feet of
BumBum. Thus, they immediately rushed BumBum to the hospital.

The defendant, nor any of the employees of the hacienda has no

knowledge of Bumbum’s presence in the hacienda, much less in the pond. Bum-
bum, nor his parents did not ask prior permission to be in the premises.

On the Spouses Danilo and Myra Benitez, parents of Bumbum, demanded

payment of Bumbum’s hospital bills plus ‘danyos perwisyo’ from Mang Jojo, but
Mang Jojo refused as he believe that what happened to Bumbum wasn’t his fault.
Thus, parents of Bumbum filed the instant case for damages against Mang Jojo.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the defendant committed quasi delict.

Whether or not the defendant is liable under Art. 2183 of the Civil Code.

Whether or not the defendant is liable for damages.

DEFENDANT’S POSITION AND ARGUMENTS

I. DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT QUASI DELICT. THE PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION.

1. In the case of Alano vs. Logmao (G.R. No. 175540), the Court held:

“In cases involving quasi-delict and torts, the plaintiff complains that the acts of a
defendant caused him or her injury. In order to be actionable, the act should
have been committed with the intention of injuring the plaintiff or was committed
recklessly or negligently or one which, even when done with the proper care, held
such high risk for injury to others that it will be presumed by law to be actionable.

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negli-
gence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

The elements of a quasi-delict are: (1) an act or omission; (2) the presence of fault
or negligence in the performance or non-performance of the act; (3) injury; (4) a
causal connection between the negligent act and the injury; and (5) no pre-ex-
isting contractual relation. Jurisprudence, however, specifies four (4) essential el-
ements: "(1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation.”

2. These elements are not present in this case. Firstly, the alleged negligence of the
defendant was not proven. Negligence is 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 suf-
fers injury. The defendant in releasing merely followed the instruction of his em-
ployer, Don Juan. In doing so, he made sure that he informed other personnels of
the hacienda that the turtle is released in the pond. He called for a meeting of all
the personnels 2 days prior the release of the snapping turtle and conducted an-
other meeting the day after the turltle was released to inform all the employees
that the turtle would be in the area for quite sometime. Several warning signs were
also put up near the area. These signs would be readily noticed by any person
who would pass by the area. These precautionary acts of the defendant negates
any willful intention of causing injury. Neither could negligence be imputed on the
defendant as he made sure to put up warning signs and inform those who might
be affected of the possible danger.

3. Secondly, defendant denies the allegation of the plaintiff that BumBum is a

regular visitor of the pond. Mang Jojo and the other employees of the hacienda
could not have known the presence of the kid in the pond since the hacienda is
not open to the public and they were not informed of any visitor on the day of
the incident. Plaintiffs and Bumbum did not ask prior permission from any person-
nel to roam around the area and bathe in the pond.

4. Thirdly, no causal connection between the alleged negligent act of Mang Jojo
and injury sustained by Bumbum can be established. Proximate cause is defined
as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any effi-
cient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred. In this case, the proximate cause of Bumbum’s injury was his
own acts or the failure of his parents to look after his safety. Plaintiff cannot con-
tend that Mang Jojo is negligent and is liable on the sole basis that he was the
one who released the snapping turtle in the pond. He was merely acting within
the confines of his duty. Hence, the injury sustained by Bumbum cannot be at-
tributed to alleged negligence of defendant.

II. RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE UNDER ART. 2183 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE.

1. Article 2183 of the Civil Code provides, “The possessor of an animal or whoever
may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause,
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the
damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage.”

2. The plaintiffs cited the case of Vestil vs. Uy, G.R. No. 74431. November 6, 1989,
which decision upheld Manresa’s view that the obligation imposed by Article
2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of
vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based
on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses
animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such
animal may cause.

3. However, Vestil does not apply in the case. In said case, the Supreme Court
established that petitioners Vestil were the possessors of the dog which bit the
victim causing her death. Hence, Art. 2183 was made to apply in upholding their
liability. In this case however, defendant cannot be considered as the possessor
of the animal as it is admitted by the plaintiff that defendant is merely a caretaker
in the hacienda. He can’t be said to be the possessor nor the user of the animal
as he does not possess the same for his utility, pleasure nor service.

4. Likewise, the case of Afialda vs. Hisole, G.R. No. L-2075, November 29, 1949, as
cited by the plaintiffs is inapplicable in the present case. In Afialda vs. Hisole, the
caretaker who died after being gored by the carabao he is responsible for, was
held to have assumed such risk as part of his employment. The decision does not
specifically address the liability of the caretaker of an animal in cases where said
animals caused damage to another person.

5. Contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments, the responsibility actually ceased as the dam-

age incurred by BumBum and his parents were through their own fault and negli-
gence. It is important to bear in mind that Bumbum is a mentally-retarded child.
Thus, supervision and guidance of her parents is of utmost importance.

III. NEGLIGENCE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IS NOT MERELY CONTRIBUTORY

Article 2179 of the Civil Code states that

 ‘When the plaintiff’s negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.’

In Syki vs Begasa the Court ruled that the underlying precept on contributory neg-
ligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be
entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own
negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actu-
ally caused by his negligence.

It is established that as parents for the mentally challenged BumBum they should
have exercised extraordinary diligence to care and rear their child. The facts
points to the negligence of the plaintiff in supervising their child which resulted in
the current unfortunate incident.

Plaintiff as parents of Bumbum should have been primarily responsible in ensuring

his saftey, especially considering the fact that Bumbum is mentally challenged.
The parents of Bumbum at the time of the incident could have prevented the
mishap if they only paid close attention to BumBum. The signages would have
warned them that bathing in the pond is dangerous, thus they would not have
allowed Bumbum to be in the area, much less, bathe therein. Even assuming that
they failed to notice the warning signs, at the very least, they should have sought
permission or inquired from the personnels of the hacienda if bathing in the pond
would be safe. The fact that Bumbum was able to submegre in the water leads
to the conclusion that they were not paying close attention to Bumbum’s actions
and that they fell short in ensuring BumBum’s safety.

The immediate and proximate cause of the injury is the plaintiff’s own negligence.
Hence, they cannot recover damages.

IV. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF ACTUAL, MORAL, AND EXEM-
PLARY DAMAGES

The Supreme Court in catena of cases consistently held that to warrant an award
of actual or compensatory damages, the claimant must prove that the damage
sustained is the natural and probable consequences of the negligent act. The
plaintiffs however failed to prove that the damages and injury sustained by Bum-
bum was due to the alleged negligent act of the defendant. The incident would
not have occurred should the plaintiffs themselves observed proper caution and
ensure the safety of their child, Bumbum.
Moral damages should not likewise be awarded. In Arco Pulp and Paper Co. vs.
Lim, G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court reiterated that “Moral
damages are not awarded as a matter of right but only after the party claiming
it proved that the breach was due to fraud or bad faith. x x x x Further, the follow-
ing requisites must be proven for the recovery of moral damages:

An award of moral damages would require certain conditions to be met,

to wit: (1) first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psycho-
logical, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) second, there must be culpa-
ble act or omission factually established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omis-
sion of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the
claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of
the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.”

In Lim vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014, the Supreme Court held that to
be entitled to such an award, the claimant must satisfactorily prove that he has
suffered damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases
listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the damages must be
shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission.

All the requisites to be entitled for the award of moral damages were not present
in this case. It is not undisputed that Bumbum has suffered physical injuries for be-
ing bitten by the snapping turtle. However, there was no culpable act or omission
on the part of Mang Jojo since he was just acting per instruction of his employer.
Therefore, the release of the snapping turtle by Mang Jojo was not the proximate
cause for the injuries suffered by Bumbum because Mang Jojo was only acting in
accordance with such instruction. In fact, Bumbum’s act of diving into the pond
unsupervised was the proximate cause of his injury which is attributable to his par-
ents. Thus, the claim for award of moral damages is not predicated on any of the
cases under Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

As to exemplary damages, these may be granted in quasi-delicts if the defend-

ant acted with gross negligence pursuant to Art. 2231 of the Civil Code.

In the case of Keiruf vs. CA, the Supreme Court stated that among the require-
ments for exemplary damages to be awarded is that the wrongful act must be
accompanied by bad faith, and the award would be allowed only if the guilty
party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
The plaintiffs here failed to establish that the alleged wrongful act of defendant
was made recklessly or oppressively. Hence, exemplary damages should not be
awarded.

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it most respectfully prayed that this Position Pa-
per and its attached documents be given due consideration and that upon resolution of
the case, a favorable judgment be rendered in favor of the Defendants, declaring that
the Plaintiffs have no cause of action for Quasi-Delict, the defendant not being negli-
gent, thereby dismissing this case for lack of merit.

Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

City of _____[Place]_______, _______[date]_______.

Atty. ______________
Counsel for the Defendant
[Address]

VERIFICATION

I, George Dela Cruz, of legal age, Filipino, and presently residing

at ________________________, after having been duly sworn to in ac-
cordance with law, hereby depose and state:
 1. That I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I, through counsel, prepared the foregoing Position Paper

on this Quasi-Delict and Claim for Damages;

3. That I have read and understood the same and all the allega-
tions therein are true, correct and of my own personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic documents;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

______ day of October in ____________________ .

George dela Cruz

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _____________ in

_____________, affiant presented SSS ID NO. xx12345678.

Witness my hand on the date and place above written.