Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Region
Branch 5, Quezon City
JONNA BUENO
Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE No. 27-112011

For Damages

-versusGLORIA SUPERMART, INC.

Defendant
x----------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Jonna Bueno (hereinafter Jonna) filed the present action
against Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc. (hereinafter Gloria
Supermart). Jonna attributes the injuries suffered by her minor son to
Gloria Supemarts gross negligence in failing to make its premises safe
for the customers, thereby making it liable under Art. 2176 and Art 2130
of the Civil Code. Defendant maintain that whatever injuries and
expenses that were incurred by the Buueno Family can be attributed to
Jonnnas failure to supervise her child.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
1. About ten in the morning of May 11, 2010, Jonna and her 5-year
old child Ricky went to Gloria Super mart to shop for groceries.
2. In the middle of their shopping, a small ball rolled along the
aisle and Ricky ran for it. However, he stepped over a puddle of syrup
and slipped. He fell so hard with a heavy bang that he shrieked in pain.
Apparently, he hurt his wrist as he tried to stop his fall.

3. Jonna immediately rushed to her sons side. As she attended

him, she noticed that the syrup on the floor seeped out from a leaking
bottle in a nearby shelf.
4. There were no signs and devices that would warn shoppers that
an area of the floor was wet. There were no nearby cleaners or janitors
wiping up the liquid. In fact, the only nearby Gloria Supermart personnel
was Rene in the next aisle and even he seemed unaware that a hazard
existed on the other side of the shelves.
5. Meanwhile, Rene Castro, the supermarket supervisor,
approached her. She asked him to help her carry her son to her car, so that
she can rush him to the hospital.
6. She then brought Ricky to the Philippine Orthopaedic Hospital,
where he was handled by Dr. John D. Lim, and the physician-on-duty at
the emergency room. Dr. Lim operated on Rickys right wrist. He had to
restore the position of his fractured bone.
7. Thereafter, he required Ricky to stay overnight at the hospital
for pain management and care. Ricky was released the next day. At first,
he complained that his wrist caused him great pain. Later on, he moved
with discomfort and difficulty. He was unable to use both hands. It took
him 6 weeks to fully recover. His mother spent P22,840.00 all in all for
his doctors fee, hospitalization and medication. Moreover, she
experienced mental suffering as she witnessed her only sons painful
recovery.
8. On the other hand, Gloria Supermart, through Rene, claims that
it exercised proper diligence in making the premises safe and that
ultimately Jonna was the one who failed to supervise Ricky. It denied
liability for all damages.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not Gloria Supermart is liable for damages for the
injury suffered by Ricky Bueno; and
2. Whether or not Jonna Bueno was contributorily negligent for
the accident
ARGUMENTS
1. GLORIA SUPERMART IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
SINCE
ITS
EMPLOYEES
NEGLIGENCE
WAS
THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

a. As it can be gleaned from the records, Ricky suffered

from a fractured bone when he tried to stop his fall as he slipped over a
puddle of syrup. The syrup apparently seeped out from a broken bottle in
a nearby shelf. Ordinarily, the supermarkets employees should have
detected the mess and cleaned the area. At the very least, it should have
placed a warning sign informing buyers to pass by with caution. But it
didnt. It failed to meet its responsibility to keep the premises neat and
clear from obstructions. It was negligent in maintaining cleanliness and
should be held accountable if by reason of such negligence, customers
have suffered from mishaps.
b. In Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R.
129792, December 21, 1999), the Court defined negligence as 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. Following this definition, the test of negligence is
therefore 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? Applying this
question to the case, it is clear that Gloria Supermart was negligent.
c. Furthermore, under Art. 2176 which provides that
whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for damage done.
d. It was the responsibility of Gloria to keep those aisles
clean and clear in order to ensure the safety and continued patronage of
its buyers. When a bottle of syrup got broken and its contents spilled on
the floor, it was the burden of Gloria to keep on eye out for these
expected eventualities and to immediately address the issue. It should
have expected, like any ordinarily prudent and reasonable man that a
hapless buyer would eventually step on it without noticing and slip
because of it. After all, buyers do not look on the floor when they buy
their groceries.
e. This negligence was the proximate cause of Rickys
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. COL Realty Corp., G.R. No. 184905, August 28,
2009).

f. Gloria Supermart may be held liable for the negligent acts

or omissions of its employees under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Art.
2180 provides that the obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable
not only for ones 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.
g. 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.
h. 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. Unfortunately, Gloria
Supermart has failed to show that it exercised such degree of diligence in
supervising Rene and the other employees.
2. JONNA BUENO WAS NOT CONTRIBUTORILY
NEGLIGENT FOR HER SONS INJURY.
a. Jonna was not negligent in watching over her son, while
they were grocery shopping. Indeed, parents have the natural right and
duty to take care and discipline their children. But Jonna did not show
lack of due care when she let Ricky run after the ball. The records show
that she was watching her son at that time.
b. Furthermore, a child running after a ball does not
necessarily mean that he is engaged in play. The child may be actually
trying to fetch the ball and return it to its rightful place or owner. There
was no reason for Jonna discipline nor closely monitor her child at that
time. Also, Jonna couldnt have reasonably foreseen her sons mishap. As
mentioned earlier, the syrup was presumably transparent and couldnt be
detected unless scrutinized up close. She also had good reason to believe
that the supermarket regularly maintains the cleanliness of its store. There
is no basis to find her negligent.
3. GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THERE IS NO PROOF
AS TO WHO OR WHAT CAUSED THE SYRUP TO FALL ON THE
FLOOR, GLORIA SUPERMARKET IS STILL LIABLE UNDER
RES IPSA LOQUITOR.
a. In his testimony, Rene Castro made a baseless inference
that the syrup on the floor must have come from one of the bottles that
Ricky knocked off from the shelf when he ran wild down the aisle. This

should not be given credence since Rene himself testified that he did not
see how the incident happened. Therefore, he did not have the
competence to testify on that matter. But granting, for the sake of
argument, that there is no proof as to who or what caused the spillage,
Gloria Supermart should still be held liable based on the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitor.
b. Rickys accident, as explained earlier, was due to the
supermarket employees negligence in failing to maintain the cleanliness
of the store. Secondly, it is without a doubt that the supermarkets
premises is within exclusive management and control of Gloria
Supermart.
c. it has been established that Ricky did not contribute to his
injury. Any other person would have slipped, had they stepped on the
syrup-coated floor.
4. JONNA IS ENTITLED TO ACTUAL DAMAGES AND
MORAL DAMAGES
a. Art. 20 of the Civil Code provides that every person who,
contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same. Moreover, Art. 2176 also obliges the
party responsible for the quasi delict to pay for the damage done. Here,
the negligence of Gloria Supermart has been clearly established. Hence,
it cannot escape liability for the payment of damages.
b. Jonna incurred P22,840 in doctors fees, hospitalization
expenses and medicine, which are properly documented by receipts
(ANNEX A). These expenses would not have been incurred had the
accident not happened as a result of Gloria Supermarts negsligence in
making sure that its premises were safe and secure.
c. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. (Art. 2217, Civil
Code) The article further provides that though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate
result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.
d. The facts bear out the claim that Jonna suffered mental
anguish, fright and serious anxiety when she saw her son injured and in
pain. Her emotional and mental state is directly connected with the fact
that her son slipped, fell and broke his wrist due to the negligence of
Gloria Supermart and its employees.
e. Ricky himself had to endure a significant amount of
physical suffering as a result of his broken wrist. Moral damages can also

be recovered for such injuries suffered as a consequence of quasi delict

because the law (Art. 2219, Civil Code) treats it as an analogous
circumstance to those instances in Art. 2217 for which moral damages
may be properly claimed.
f. Note that in addition to the pain he suffered on the day of
the injury, such pain lasted even up to 6 weeks after the surgery, during
which time; he had limited range of movement in his hands and was also
forced to deal with a significant amount of discomfort.
g. Assuming Jonna should have taken greater care in looking
after Ricky, this still does not make her negligence the proximate cause
because an accident would still not necessarily have occurred without the
efficient intervening cause of the liquid on the floor.
h. The proximate cause of Rickys injury and the Bueno
familys subsequent suffering is still Gloria Supermarts negligence.
Hence, Gloria Supermart should still be primarily liable for the payment
of damages.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant by:
1) FINDING Gloria Supermart liable for the commission of
negligent acts under Art. 2176 and 2180 when it failed to maintain safe
premises for its customers; causing injury to Ricky.
2) ORDERING Gloria Supermart to pay both actual damages of
P22,840, and moral damages in an amount this Honorable Court finds
just and reasonable under the circumstances.
Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are
likewise prayed for. Quezon City, November 27, 2011.
(Sgd.) ATTY. REX BELTRAN
Counsel for Plaintiff
Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:

Copy furnished:
ATTY EMIL SUNGA
Counsel for Defendant