Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Memorandum 10717 PDF
Memorandum 10717 PDF
Plaintiff Jonna Bueno (hereinafter “Jonna”) filed the present action for damages against
Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc. (hereinafter “Gloria Supermart”). Jonna attributes the injuries
suffered by her minor son to Gloria Supermart’s gross negligence in failing to make its premises
safe for customers, thereby making it liable under Art. 2176 and Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
Defendant maintain that whatever injuries and expenses that were incurred by the Bueno family
can be attributed to Jonna’s failure to supervise her child.
ISSUES
Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are presented
for discussion:
1. Whether or not Gloria Supermart may be held liable for the commission of a quasi
delict under Art. 2176 and Art, 2180 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether or not Gloria Supermart may be held liable for damages.
ARGUMENTS
I. Gloria Supermart is liable for the commission of a quasi delict that was the proximate
cause of Ricky’s injuries.
A. The proximate cause of the injuries that Ricky suffered was the negligence of
Gloria Supermart’s employees.
1. Art. 2176 provides that “whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for damage done.” In the case of Child
Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio (G.R. No. 150920, Nov. 25, 2005), the Supreme Court
stated that “in order to establish a quasi-delict case under this provision, the plaintiff must
prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the
fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose acts he must
respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and
damages incurred.” (supra)
2. All three conditions obtain in the present case.
3. It is undisputed that Ricky broke his wrist when he slipped and fell on a puddle
of liquid syrup that was on the floor of Gloria Supermart’s premises. It was the presence
of this syrup that was the proximate cause of Ricky’s injury. Proximate cause is 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.” (Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, Aug. 28, 2009). It
is submitted that Ricky would not have fallen and broke his wrist if he had not slipped on
the syrup.
4. The question now is, is his act of slipping on the syrup an accident or is the
syrup’s presence on the floor an act of negligence that may be attributed to Gloria
Supermart’s employees? If the proximate cause was an accident, clearly no liability can
attach to Gloria Supremart. On the other hand, if the proximate cause is the latter’s
negligence, it may properly held liable under the provisions of the Civil Code.
5. An accident pertains “to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence
attaches to the defendant. On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would do.” (Jarco Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129792, Dec. 21, 1999)
6. Applying the law to the present case, it is clear that Ricky’s injury was not caused
by accident. As earlier mentioned, Ricky broke his wrist because he slipped and fell due
to liquid syrup that was seeping from a bottle located on the supermarket shelves.
Clearly, the liquid should not have been on the floor as common sense would indicate
that it posed a threat to even the most careful of individuals walking past. Anybody
could have slipped and fallen on the syrup.
7. The mere presence of the syrup on the floor already negates Gloria Supermart’s
claim that it exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe. Based on its past
experience as admitted by Rene, similar accidents have previously occurred. Thus, it
could have easily foreseen that such an accident could happen again. Failure to take the
proper precautions in guarding against such a mishap is an act of negligence on the part
of Gloria Supermart’s employees.
8. Specifically, Rene, as store supervisor, could have been more vigilant in
patrolling the aisles for spills or the presence of similar hazards. He failed the test for
determining whether a person is negligent that was laid out by the Supreme Court in the
case of Philippine National Construction v. CA (G.R. No. 159270, Aug. 22, 2005). The
test in that case requires a person to act as a prudent man in a similar position and fails to
take the proper precautions against foreseeable harm. He has already had 5 years of
experience in handling the incidents of the supermarket and yet he did nothing.
9. Moreover, signs and warning devices which would inform shoppers that a hazard
was present were noticeably absent. This oversight evidences even the want of ordinary
care on the part of Rene and the other supermarket employees.
10. Rene and the other employees’ negligence in patrolling the aisles and placing
proper warning signs/devices is further supported by the fact that, as earlier mentioned: 1)
similar accidents often happen, and 2) they knew that children often accompany their
parents to the supermarket. Having advance notice of these facts, they cannot now claim
that Ricky’s injury was an unforeseeable accident.
B. Gloria Supermart may be held liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its
employees under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
11. Art. 2180 provides that “the obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not
only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.” Said article further provides that “the owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
12. Applying the foregoing to the present case, it is clear that Rene and other
employees on duty that day were at that time in the service of Gloria Supermart,
performing their regular functions and duties.
13. In order to escape liability for its employees’ negligent acts, Gloria Supermart
must show that it observed “the diligence of a a good father of the family” to prevent the
damage.
14. Unfortunately, Gloria Supermart has failed to show that it exercised such degree
of diligence in supervising Rene and the other employees. The testimonies on record do
not show that it was store policy to take extra precautions against spills and other mishaps
which occur in the ordinary course of a supermarket business. The testimonies on record
also indicate an absence of institutional concern for the safety and well being of children
that they knew often accompanied their parents in the store. In fact, Rene testified that
children were the sole responsibility of their parents. While this may be true to a certain
extent, considering that Art. 209 of the Civil Code provides that authority over minor
children are with the parents, Gloria Supermart could have, by exercising ordinary care,
prevented or at least minimized the possibility of mishaps occurring. The prevention and
removal of hazards like the syrup on the floor is a duty that falls squarely within its area
of responsibility. Moreover, children cannot be held to the same exacting standards of
diligence that are attributed to an adult. Children of tender years like Ricky, are
obviously at greater risk from hazards. Despite Gloria Supermart’s knowledge and
awareness of children’s presence on its premises, it did not exercise the diligence of a
good father of the family in making sure that it took extra care to supervise and instruct
its employees in minimizing the risk.
15. All told, it is evident that all the conditions of a quasi delict obtain in the present
case: Ricky suffered an injury which in the ordinary course of events would not have
happened had it not been for the negligence of Gloria Supermart’s employees in
preventing the occurrence of spillages and other ordinary store incidents and
subsequently, in not promptly cleaning up the spilled liquid syrup and in not placing
signs and other warning devices. Gloria Supermart itself was liable for the acts of its
employees because it failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in
making sure that it was company policy to take precautions against foreseeable accidents,
including those that would involve children. Assuming there was such a policy it was
negligent in supervising its employees to ensure that they adhered to such standards and
policies.
Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are likewise prayed
for.
Copy furnished:
ATTY EMIL SUNGA
Counsel for Defendant
EXPLANATION
In view of time and manpower restrictions, the above Memorandum was served via
registered mail as personal service could not be availed of without causing undue hardship to
plaintiff.