Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
12th Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
BRANCH 01
Iligan City
Email Add: Mtcc1ili001@judiciary.gov.ph
Hotline Nos. 221-2266 / 0905-1656-455

JUAN DELA CRUZ AND CIVIL CASE NO. 22-37

M ARIA D ELA PAZ
Plaintiff, FOR: DAMAGES

-versus-

JHON DOE,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully file
this Complaint and in support thereof state that:

The Parties

1. Plaintiff, Juan Dela Cruz and Maria Dela Paz, are both of legal age,
married to each other, Filipino citizens, and residents of Uranus St.,
Rabago Subdivision, Villaverde, Iligan City. They may be served with
summons and other court processes through the office address of the
undersigned counsel.
2. Defendant, Jhon Doe, is of legal age, a Filipino citizen, with a
business address located at Max’s Chicken House, Quezon Avenue,
Poblacion, Iligan City where he may be served with the summons
and other court processes.

Factual Allegations

1. On January 16, 2021, at about 11:24 o’clock in the morning, a fire

broke out at Permites St. Brgy. San Miguel, Iligan City more
particularly in Eltanal Building where seven (7) stalls with (2) storeys
made of mixed materials were located;

2. At that time, Juan was out doing grocery while his wife Maria, who
was then pregnant, was sleeping inside the unit which they were
renting at Door No. 6 of Eltanal Building. Juan was informed about
the ongoing fire through phone calls by his hysterical neighbor who
urged him to go back.

3. Maria was awoken by the shouting of her neighbors telling her to

wake up and by the incinerating heat and hellish smoke permeating
the premises from the fire;

4. Alarmed, Maria, reached for the exit but it was already swarmed by
the suffocating air of soot and heat, with people and properties alike
subjugated to a state of frenzy. Left with no choice, she escaped from
the building through the window with the generous assistance of
their neighbors;

5. Unfortunately, what was once their humble clothing shop and place
of respite has now become nothing but an ember of their financial
nightmares.

6. At about 12:10 o’clock during noon, the Bureau of Fire Protection-

Iligan City Fire Station declared a fire out over the incident;
7. After the initial investigation by BFP SF02 Pedro Gil., it was revealed
that the fire originated at Max’s Chicken House, a business
establishment owned by Defendant Jhon Doe;

8. It was estimated through the said report that the damaged properties
accumulated Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), or more
or less. The fire also totally damaged the plaintiffs’s store situated in
Door No. 6, i.e., Cinnamon Rock Clothing, 99 Babe and Cloud
Machine Shop, while partially damaging five (5) other establishments
in Eltanal Building including the Ourfunage-a clothing and apparel
shop owned by the Plaintiffs stationed at Door No. 4;

9. As the tenant of Door Nos. 4 and 6 at Eltanal Building, Permites St.

Brgy. San Miguel, the Plaintiffs secured a fire incident certification
from the Bureau of Fire Protection-Iligna City of Fire Station;

10.Since the above-mentioned certification is not valid for an insurance

claim, Plaintiff sought a direct recourse to the catalyst of the hostile
fire, which is the proprietor of Max’s Chicken House, Jhon Doe. The
Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages before the Office of the
Punong Baranggay of Poblacion, Iligan City which was docketed as
Brgy. Case No. 02-08-2021;

11. However, since no settlement or conciliation was reached, a

certificate to file action was issued by the Office of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Poblacion, Iligan City;

12. Now, Plaintiff is constrained to file this Complaint for damages and
attorney’s fees against Defendant because of the latter’s recalcitrance
to make amends with the Plaintiff on account of the fire incident;
 Cause of Action

13.First, a right of the Plaintiffs was violated by the Defendant when the
subject fire razed the former’s property-an occurrence that is entirely
attributable to the fault of the latter;

14.As the proprietor of a clothing and apparel shop, the Plaintiff has the
right to have a peaceful and hazard-free environment for his business
undertaking. While it is conceded that Max’s Chicken House is a
business establishment that runs on culinary and open-fire mechanics
for it to operate, it does not discount the fact that its proprietor
should have been more circumspect in its management;

15.The Plaintiffs ‘property and economic rights were violated by the

Defendant when they caused the fire which broke out in the morning
of January 16, 2021;

16.Owing to the said violation, the Plaintiffs suffered in terms of actual

physical damage to property, financial incentive and reputation to
their business, as well as their psychological well-being because of
the fire;

17.Jurisprudence is replete in reiterating the textual meaning of

proximate cause, as held in Dela Cruz v. Octa Viano, to wit:

“Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any new cause produces an event, and
without which the event would not have occurred.”

18.The hostile fire was administratively traced down by the BFP to its
source which is Max’s Chicken House. As its proprietor, the
Defendant had the responsibility to prevent such incident from
happening. Still, they failed. Whether it is by fault or negligence, it is
 inconsequential since damage was sustained by the Plaintiffs on
account of the event;

19.The following provisions under Title XVII of the New Civil Code are
the pertinent to the cause of action of the Plaintiffs in the instant case,
viz:

"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 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."

Art. 2180. 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.

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.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their

employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry. (Omissions supplied)

20.Second, the instant case is a claim for moral, exemplary, and

temperate damages. The New Civil Code also provides that:

Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental

anguish, fright, 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 for omission.

Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the

sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be
considered.

Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more

than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be
recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has
been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the
case, be provided with certainty.

Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the

circumstances.

Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by

way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to
the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted

if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

21.As to the claim for moral damages, the Plaintiffs suffered sleepless
nights and post-traumatic stress constitutive of mental anguish and
serious anxiety to the Plaintiffs;

22.Attached herein is a Medical Certificate issued by Dr. April Fatima J.

Hernandez proving that Maria suffered a Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder and that she was advised to go on medication and
psychotherapy;

23.In Estrada v. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., the Supreme Court held
that:
 “x x x [C]ase law establishes the following requisites for the
award of moral damages: (1) there must be an injury clearly
sustained by the claimant, whether physical, mental or
psychological; (2) there must be a culpable act or omission
factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the
claimant, and (4) the award for damages is predicated on any of
the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.”

24.Pertinently, one of the cases stated under Article 2219 of the Civil
Code is a violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code, viz:

“Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a

manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

25.Moreover, in Guy v. Tulfo, the Supreme Court held that”

“Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to

compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury unjustly caused a person. Although incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages must nevertheless be
somehow proportional to and in approximation of the suffering
inflicted. This is so because moral damages to compensate the
claimant for actual injury suffered, not to impose a penalty on
the wrongdoer.

Unlike actual and temperate damages, moral damages may be

rewarded even if the injured party failed to prove that he has
suffered pecuniary loss. As long as it was established that
 complainant’s injury was the result of the offending party’s
action, the complainant may recover moral damages.”
26. As to the claim for temperate damages, the case of Republic v.
Looyuko is clear, to wit:

“Nevertheless, under Article 224 of the New Civil Code,

temperate damages may be recovered when pecuniary loss has
been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the
case, be proven with certainty. In such cases, the amount of the
award is left to the discretion of the courts, but the same should
be reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate damages should
be more than nominal but less than compensatory.”

27.Regrettably, the Plaintiffs are unable to provide actual receipts to

prove a claim for actual or compensatory damages to which they are
entitled on account of the loss of their property. However, it is still
within the bounds of reason that they be granted temperate damages
on account of the undeniable loss of earning capacity they suffered
because of the act of the Defendant in starting the fire;

28.As to the claim for exemplary damages, the Supreme Court held in
Sian v. Spouses Somoso that:

“That the rule in our jurisdiction is that exemplary

damages are awarded in addition to moral damages. In the case
of Mahinay v. Velasquez, Jr., the Court pronounced:

If the Court has no proof or evidence upon which the

claim for moral damages could be based, such indemnity could
not be outrightly awarded. The same holds true with respect to
the award of exemplary damages where it must be shown that
the party acted in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Furthermore, this specie of damages is allowed only in addition
 to moral damages can be awarded unless the claimant first
establishes his clear right to moral damages.”

Plaintiffs’ Documentary Evidence

1. To establish the material facts in support of plaintiffs’

allegations, the following documents will be presented
namely:

1. Copies of the photographs taken on the unites rented by the Plaintiffs

before the fire-These documents are intended to prove and support
the jurisdictional requirements of this case.

2. Copies of the photographs taken on the units rented by the Plaintiffs

after the fire-These documents are intended to prove and support the
jurisdictional requirements of this case.

3. Copy of the Spot Investigation Report-This document is intended to

prove that a fire broke out on January 16, 2021, at about 11:24 o’clock
in the morning, at Permites St. Brgy. San Miguel, Iligan City more
particularly in Eltanal Building.

4. Copy of the Fire Incident Certification dated on May 19, 2021-This

Document is intended to prove the fact of the incident and the
involvement of the Plaintiff as a victim of the said fire.

5. Copy of the Certificate to File Action dated May 19, 2022-this

document is intended to prove and support the jurisdictional
requirements of this case.
 Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the

Honorable Court to render judgement in favor of Plaintiff, as follows:

1. To order the Defendant to pay Moral Damages in the amount of One

Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00);
2. To order the Defendant to pay Temperate Damages in the amount of
One Million Pesos (P 1,000, 000.00);
3. To order the Defendant to pay Exemplary Damages in the amount of
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00);
4. To order the Defendant to pay Attorney’s Fees in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

23rd of September 2023, Iligan City.

SUI GENERIS LAW

0080-C, G/F Co-ops for Christ Bldg.
S.T. Lluch St., Poblacion, Iligan City
Contact Nos. (063) 2292299 | 09069140491

By:
ARIANE P. BAGARES
Roll No. 12345 | July 30, 2020
IBP OR No. 123456 | December 25, 2021 | Pasig City
PTR No. 123456 | January 4, 2022 | Iligan City
MCLE Compliance No. 123456 | Mar. 8, 2022