Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Region
Quezon City

JOAN CRUZ,                                                                   CIVIL CASE NO. ______

              Plaintiff,                                                                    
   -versus –                                                               F O R:

ROYAL SUPERMART, INC.,                                                               DAMAGES

   Defendant.                                             
X--------------------------------------------/
MEMORANDUM
        Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits this memorandum and in support thereof, avers that:

I.    Statement of the Case

This is an action for damages of P500,000.00 filed by Plaintff Joan Cruz against
defendant Royal Supermart, Inc, for the injuries that her son has suffered at its supermarket and
for the expense and the emotional pain that the it brought to her and her son.

II.    Statement of Facts

        On May 11, 2010, at about 10a.m., plaintiff Joan Cruz went to Royal Supermart to shop
for groceries. With her, was her 5 year old son, Biboy. Plaintiff alleges that while picking up
groceries at the shelves, she saw a small ball rolling along the aisle. This ball caught the attention
of Biboy, who, being but a child of tender years, possessed of the immature disposition of
individuals of that age, ran after it down the aisle. It was at this point that plaintiff saw Biboy slip
with a heavy bang on a wet section of the aisle, caused by puddle of a liquid syrup that seeped
out from a leaking bottle in a nearby shelf.  Plaintiff immediately rushed Biboy to the Philippine
Orthopedic Hospital where Dr. John D. Lim, an orthopedic surgeon, attended to him and
operated on his right wrist to restore the position of a fractured bone. After the operation, Biboy
was required to stay overnight at the hospital for pain management and care and was released on
the following day. However, upon plaintiff’s observation, it took about six weeks before Biboy
has gained full recovery of the use of his hand. In that span of time, he moved with discomfort
and difficulty, unable to use, in fact, both hands. Plaintiff, as a mother, claims to have suffered
mental anguish, as well and in addition, was aggrieved to have spent P22,840.00 for doctor’s
fees, hospitalization expenses, medicines and the new toys they bought to distract Biboy from the
pain he suffered, as evidenced by receipts.

        Moreover, plaintiff maintains that although a store clerk has helped her carry Biboy to
her car, the clerk was not very friendly and that there was no supermarket cleaner nearby the
puddle of syrup or at least a sign that could have warned people of the wet floor and the danger it
presents. Accordingly, she is blaming the management of Royal Supermart for its gross
negligence in failing to make its premises safe for the customers.
 On the other hand, defendant Royal Supermart, through Rene Castro, the supermarket’s
supervisor of 5 years, claims that it exercised proper diligence in making the premises safe; that
the accident cannot be reasonably anticipated and was beyond the supermarket’s control; that
Biboy and his mother contributed to Biboy slipping on the floor and suffering physical injury
and pain and that Royal Supermart provided immediate help and assistance to Biboy and his
mother. It denied liability for all damages.

III.    Statement of the Issues

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are presented for
discussion:
1.       Whether or not Royal Supermart exercised proper diligence in making its premises
safe for its customers

2.   Whether or not Royal Supermart may be held liable for the commission of a quasi-
delict under Art. 2176 and Art, 2180 of the Civil Code

3.      Whether or not Royal Supermart may be held liable for damages.

IV.             Arguments and Discussion

1.      Royal Supermart did not exercise proper diligence in making its premises safe for its
customers and was grossly negligent in doing the same.

       Defendant Royal Supermart, through its supervisor, Rene Castro, claimed that the
supermarket exercised due diligence in making its premises safe. However, this diligence
cannot be simply presumed. It is worthy to note that defendant failed to provide evidences
disproving plaintiff’s allegation that when Biboy slipped, there was no supermarket cleaner
nearby who should’ve mopped the wet floor. From this fact alone, it can be inferred that there
was gross negligence on the part of the management or employees of Royal Supermart.
            
        Negligence, as defined in the case of Jarco Marketing Corporation vs Court of Appeals, 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 not do. (Emphasis supplied) As alleged, Biboy broke his
wrist because he slipped and fell due to a liquid syrup that was seeping from a bottle in a nearby
shelf. The fact that there was liquid on the floor, which should not have been there to begin with,
as common sense would indicate that it posed a threat to every individual walking past, is
enough to negate defendant’s claim that it exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe.
The supermarket’s failure to take the proper precautions such as installing a warning sign for the
wet floor or assigning perhaps a cleaner that could’ve mopped it, is an act of negligence on the
part of Royal Supermart’s management or employees.

2.  Whether or not Royal Supermart may be held liable for the commission of a quasi-delict
under Art. 2176 and Art, 2180 of the Civil Code
 Article 2176 states 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 quasi-delict and is
governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.

Defendant, Royal Supermart, should be held liable under Article 2176 and 2180 for
failing to exercise due diligence in maintaining its premises safe for their customers through its
supervisor, Mr Castro. As stated in the case above, 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
not do. The test for 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? Mr Castro, as the store supervisor should
have been able to put a warning sign on the puddle or cleaned the area where the alleged syrup
was leaking. They had more than enough time to remove the alleged leaking bottle or clean the
puddle of syrup since syrups are relatively viscous and may take an ample amount of time to
create a puddle on the floor. If Biboy was the real cause of the puddle on which he slipped as
what Royal Supermart’s supervisor is claiming, then they should have provided evidence on their
claim and taken pictures of the said incident.

Art. 2180 states that “The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.” It further
states 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.”

In this case, Mr. Castro, together with the other employees, is clearly on the job that very
day during the service time of the supermarket, discharging their usual tasks and duties. The
supermart ought to demonstrate that it adhered to “The diligence of a good father of the family”
so as the damage is avoided and such be not liable for the negligent acts of its employees.
However, Royal Supermart is unsuccessful to convey that it made use of such measure of
diligence in overseeing its employees. Mr. Castro conceded that similar mishaps have transpired
before. Consequently, such accident could be undoubtedly anticipated to occur again as these
things are deemed by him as unavoidable in view of the fact that hundreds of people even
children come to the supermarket everyday. Nonfulfillment to carry out the appropriate
precautions and safety measures in keeping an eye against such accident is a perceptible act of
negligence on the role of the employees of Royal Supermart. The testimony of Mr. Castro, that
the parents are the ones responsible to look after their children, may be correct to some degree as
provided by Article 209 of the Civil Code that the parents shall have the authority and
responsibility over children, the likelihood of accidents happening could have been forestalled or
diminished by the supermarket through applying or exercising standard supervision and care. It
is a duty and responsibility of the supermarket to prevent and clear out pitfalls such as the said
syrup on the floor.
 Furthermore, a child of young years like Biboy himself cannot be expected to have the
same strict qualities of careful and persistent work or effort that are imputed to that of an adult.
Children of his age range are clearly at higher possibility and exposure to risks and dangers.
Royal Supermart failed to exercise “The diligence of a good father of the family” in ensuring that
it exerted care and effort to oversee and apprise its staff and personnel in reducing the hazard
notwithstanding its cognizance of the presence of children upon its site. It is, hence, clear that all
the prerequisites of a quasi-delict procure in this existing case.

xxx xxx xxx

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.

Mr. Rene Castro’s shortcomings on exercising due diligence in making the supermarket’s
premises safe for their customers has caused Mrs Cruz a great deal of stress and injury to her son
Biboy, and under Article 2176 should be compensated accordingly.

Royal Supermart is also liable for the damaged caused by Mr. Rene Castro’s actions
under Article 2180. Since Mr. Castro is employed by Royal Supermart and was at the time of the
incident, on duty as the supermarket’s supervisor.  

3. Royal Supermart has the liability to pay for the damages caused.

       

                   
V.    Prayer
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed to this HONORABLE COURT,  that a
judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant by:
Other reliefs, just and proper, are likewise prayed for.
Cagayan de Oro City, July 12, 2017.
(Law Office)
By:
(Counsel)