MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits this Memorandum, as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE This is an action for damages filed by Jonna Bueno against Gloria Supermart, Inc. for the injuries that her son, Ricky, suffered at its supermarket, for the expense, and for the emotional pain that it brought to him and his mother. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Plaintiff Jonna Bueno (BUENO), married, a resident of 89 Little Baguio St., San Juan City, Metro Manila, has been a customer of Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc. (GSI), a supermarket located at Ortigas Avenue, San Juan, Metro Manila. On May 11, 2010, at about 10:00 a.m., plaintiff BUENO, together with her son Ricky went to GSI to buy groceries. BUENO claimed that while she and her son were picking up groceries at the shelves, a small ball rolled along the aisle and Ricky ran after it then soon thereafter, she saw him slip with a heavy bang on a wet section of the aisle. So, BUENO immediately came to Ricky and immediately brought him to the hospital where he stayed overnight for medication. BUENO claimed that Ricky complained complained of great pain and it took about six (6) weeks for him to recover. BUENO further claimed that Ricky moved with discomfort and difficulty, unable to use both hands. Also, that as a mother, she suffered mental pain. BUENO blamed GSI for the injuries suffered by her son claiming that not any employee of GSI was there to prevent the incident; that the wet floor caused Ricky to slip on it. GSI, on the other hand, denies the claims of BUENO and through its witness Rene Castro, claims that it exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe for its customers. Moreover, GSI claims that the accident involving Ricky was something beyond its control; that in any event, Ricky and her mother contributed to Ricky’s slipping on the floor; that GSI provided immediate help and assistance to Ricky and her mother. Furthermore, GSI asserts that BUENO has the responsibility for looking after Ricky’s needs and safety. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The issues to be resolved in this case are the following: 1. Whether or not the injuries suffered by Ricky was due to the negligence of Gloria Supermart, Inc. 2.
Whether or not plaintiff BUENO is entitled to damages.
ARGUMENTS On the first issue: I. AS THE ONE IN EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF ITS PREMISES, GSI IS NEGLIGENT IN NOT MAKING ITS PREMISES SAFE FOR ITS CUSTOMERS Defendant GSI, being the owner of the supermarket, has the exclusive management and control of its premises. As such, it has the duty to keep its premises safe for its customers. However, GSI was negligent because by defendant’s witness’ own admission, the floor where Ricky slipped over, was wet with syrup coming from the store’s merchandise and yet no one was there to clear it. What more, there was even no warning that the floor was wet. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, the agency or instrumentality who has exclusive management or control of its premises is negligent and is the one liable for injuries caused to third person where the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; and the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. (Child Learing Center, Inc. v. Topacio, 476 SCRA 236, 2005) The aforesaid doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is properly applicable in this case. First, GSI has the exclusive management and control of its premises; second, it may be inferred from the fact that were it not for the wet floor of GSI’s store, Ricky would not have slipped on the floor; and third, Ricky did not voluntarily caused the injury to himself. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that it was GSI’s negligence which produced the injury to Ricky. II. DEFENDANT GSI FAILED TO EXERCISE PROPER DILIGENCE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS PREMISES It cannot be denied that defendant GSI is negligent in maintaining the safety in its premises specially that being a supermarket, its store can be considered as an attractive nuisance. Under the law, and as held by the Supreme Court in Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan, et al. (91 Phil. 488) (1952): “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 technically a trespasser in the premises.” In this case, defendant GSI is maintaining premises containing merchandise of a character likely to attract children, like Ricky, in play and unfortunately, GSI failed to exercise
ordinary care to prevent Ricky from playing therewith since no one was around to see to it that Ricky will not be injured by such merchandise. Hence, GSI is liable for the injuries sustained by Ricky. On the second issue: I. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES BECAUSE OF THE INJURIES SUSTAINED BY RICKY DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that: “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 negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.” As applied in this case, defendant’s negligence causing injury to Ricky, plaintiff’s minor son, entitles the plaintiff to damages. Plaintiff BUENO, upon proving by sufficient evidence such as the receipts for Ricky’s medication and hospitalization can properly claim for actual damages in accodance with Article 2199, which provides: “Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.” In addition, since plaintiff suffered mental anguish for the injury suffered by his son, she is also entitled to claim for moral damages. This finds support in the provision in Article 2217 of the Civil Code which states: “Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, freight, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.” To be sure, Article 2219 of the Civil Code expressly provides that: “Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: xxx xxx xxx (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; xxx xxx xxx”
It cannot be denied, therefore, that plaintiff is indeed entitled also to moral damages for the physical injuries sustained by her minor son Ricky. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant: 1) 2) 3)
DECLARING defendant to be liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff’s son Ricky; ORDERING defendant to pay the plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P27,840.00, plus attorney’s fees and cost of the suit; and ORDERING defendant to pay the plaintiff moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00 or as the Court may deem proper in the premises.
OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Quezon City, Philippines. November 27, 2011. (Signed) Atty. REX BELTRAN Counsel for Plaintiff 123 España St., City of Manila Roll No. 51234; 04/27/11 PTR No. 6789; 01/05/11; Manila IBP No. 7982; 03/20/11;Manila MCLE Compliance No. III-123; 06/14/11
