REPUBLIC OF THE PHLIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 250
MUNTINLUPA CITY
ANTONIO BOMBA,
ISSA DOLERO,
MIKE KWARTO,
12345678
VINCENT MANAL, and
MAXI PARI
Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE No.

For: Damages

-versusCITY OF MUNTINLUPA,
Defendant,
x------------------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFFS, through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully submits their Pre-Trial Brief as follows:
1. Plaintiff is willing to enter into an amicable
settlement of the case, under terms and
conditions which are agreeable to both parties.
Plaintiff is willing to submit the technical issues for
resolution by technical experts.
2. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES.
2.1. The plaintiffs fault the City of Muntinlupa for its
negligence in failing to clean the septic tank for
the period of nineteen (19) years resulting in an
accumulation of hydrogen sulphide gas which
killed the labourers. Moreover, such failure was
compounded by the fact that there was no
warning sign of the existing danger and no
efforts exerted by the defendant City of
Muntinlupa to neutralize or render harmless the
effects of the toxic gas.

2.2. Plaintiffs submit that the defendants gross

negligence was the proximate cause of the fatal
accident.
2.3. Defendant posits that while it may be true that
the defendant has been remiss in its duty to reempty the septic tank annually, such negligence
was not a continuing one. Upon learning from
the report of the market master about the need
to clean the septic tank, the defendant
immediately responded by issuing invitations to
bid for such service.
2.4. Defendant claims that it may be true that there
was no warning sign of noxious gas put up in
the toilet in addition to the signs of Men and
Women in place in that area, toilets and septic
tanks are not nuisances per se as defined in
Article 693 of the New Civil Code which would
necessitate warning signs for the protection of
the public.
3. Plaintiffs admit the following facts:
3.1. The identity of the defendant filing this action
for damages.
3.2. The identities of the deceased, Tinjus Dolero,
Jose Crisanta, Mark Balsa, Ephraim Medina and
Anna Asuncion.
3.3. The unfortunate attempt to empty the septic
tank causing the death of the deceased.
3.4. The identity of the fireman, Protts Espirit, and
his removal of the body found inside the septic
tank.
3.5. The date, place, and the time of the misfortune,
which was November 22, 2014 near the
Muntinlupa Public Market, at around 1:00pm.
4. The issues which plaintiffs raise are as follows:

4.1. Whether or not the defendant is negligent for its

failure to re-empty the septic tank to the
prejudice of the public.
4.2. Whether or not the defendants alleged
negligence is the proximate cause of the death
of the deceased and therefor the heirs of the
deceased are entitled to damages.
5. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE.
5.1. 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 (Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company, L21291, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 674, 680).
5.2. 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 no pre-existing
contractual relations between the parties, Is
called quasi delict. (Article 2176, New Civil
Code).
5.3. To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting
from the negligence of another, a claimant must
establish the relation between the omission and
the damage. He must prove under Article 2179
of the New Civil Code that the defendant's
negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury.
5.4. Proximate cause has been defined as that
cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which
the result would not have occurred (Vda. de
Bataclan, et al. v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186).

6. DOCUMENTRAY AND OBJECT EVIDENCE.

6.1. Without prejudice to the presentation of
additional documentary exhibits as the
exigencies of trial or dictates of justice shall
require, as well as defendants right to adopt
any documentary exhibit/s that other concerned
parties will present in the course of these
proceedings, plaintiffs will be presenting the
following exhibits for the purposes indicated
below (similarly without prejudice to such
additional purposes that may be stated upon
formal offer as the exigencies of litigation
and/or the interest of justice may warrant), to
wit:
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION
Medical
Certificates of
the Deceased

EXHIBIT B

Construction
Plan of
Muntinlupa
Public Market,
specifically the
septic tank
Photographs of
the physical
appearance of
the Public
market and its
septic tank

EXHIBIT C

7.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

PURPOSE
To prove the
cause of death
of the
deceased
To prove the
defects in the
design of the
septic tank
To prove the
physical
appearance of
Muntinlupa
Public Market
and its septic
tank

7.1. Without prejudice to the presentation of other

witnesses, and/or adopting the testimonies of
witnesses already presented as the exigencies
of trial or the dictates of justice may require,
plaintiffs intend to present:

WITNESS
Mr. John Nitor

Mr. Manny Ger

Mr. Marco Polo

TESTIMONY
To testify on the
ventilation of the
Comfort Room of
Muntinlupa Public
Market
To testify on the
negligence of the
defendant in its failure to
comply with sanitary and
safety regulation
To testify on the defects
in the construction plan
of the septic tank

8. TRIAL DATES
8.1. Plaintiffs are open for trial on such dates that
may be agreed upon by the parties during pretrial.
9. RESERVATION
9.1. Plaintiffs respectfully reserve the right to
present other witnesses, documents or other
pieces of evidence in addition to, or in
substitution of, those mentioned above and/or
for purposes in addition to or in substitution of
those mentioned should a need thereof arises;
propose other issues as the exigencies of trial
may demand; cite and invoke other laws and
jurisprudence that may be relevant in the
course of the proceedings; amend her
pleadings, as may be warranted.
Respectfully Submitted.
PARALEJAS AND QUITCO
Law Office
Counsel for the Plaintif
Unit 1, Southgate Building,

Madrigal Business Park,

Alabang, Muntinlupa City
By:
CLAIRE ANNE F. PARALEJAS
PTR No. 1234567 01.03.12
Muntinlupa City
IBP No. 112233 01.29.12
PPLM Chapter
Roll No. 09876
VERICSON D. QUITCO
PTR No. 0987654 01.03.12
Muntinlupa City
IBP No. 223344 01.29.12
PPLM Chapter
Roll No. 03456
Copy furnished by Registered Mail w/ Return Card:
PADRE RESURRECCION & RODRIGUEZ
Counsel for the Defendant
23rd Floor,
Multinational Centre
6805Ayala Avenue,
Makati City
EXPLANATION
Due to time, distance and manpower constraints,
copies of this Pre-trial Brief are being filed and served by
registered mail.
Muntinlupa City, February 18, 2015.
PARALEJAS AND QUITCO
Law Office
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 1, Southgate Building,
Madrigal Business Park,
Alabang, Muntinlupa City
By:

CLAIRE ANNE F. PARALEJAS

PTR No. 1234567 01.03.12
Muntinlupa City
IBP No. 112233 01.29.12
PPLM Chapter
Roll No. 09876
VERICSON D. QUITCO
PTR No. 0987654 01.03.12
Muntinlupa City
IBP No. 223344 01.29.12
PPLM Chapter
Roll No.
03456