Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Calabarzon Region
Branch 1, Antipolo City

LUZ DIAZ Civil Case No. 17-102018

Plaintiff, For Damages
- versus -
EMMA CRISOSTOMO
Defendant.
x------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Luz Diaz filed the present action for damages against Defendant Emma
Crisostomo. Luz alleges the death of her dog, Trix, to Emma Crisostomo due to the gross
negligence of her carpenter in failing to make sure the truck is properly parked, thereby making it
liable under Art. 2176 and Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Defendant insists that the death of Luz’s
dog was her fault.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. In the afternoon of October 25, 2010, at the Mountain View Subdivision, Antipolo,
Rizal, Luz Diaz was taking her siesta by the day bed in her living room when she noticed her dog,
Trix, a seven years and 11 month old poodle that has been with her since her husband passed away
either years ago, was no longer by her feet.
 2. Luz went to look for her dog in the kitchen but it wasn’t there. Petitioner decided
to go to the garden but before reaching there, she heard a loud crashing bang and Trix’s cries.
3. Running towards the gate where the sound came from, she found Trix, thrashing
and squeeling underneath the truck that was backed up against a tree by the sidewalk.
4. Luz cried and screamed for Nilda, her helper, and shouted for the guards who roams
the subdivision, but no one came.
5. Luz could not save him because the truck driver was not there, nor did she know
how to drive. Trix kept on howling until he stopped moving and died soon after.
6. As soon as Trix died, Luz banged the gate of her neighbor, Emma. Luz knew that
the truck was owned by a carpenter who was renovating Emma’s house. The carpenter’s truck was
parked in front of Emma’s house since she started renovating. Aside from that, the street they were
living in is sloping.
7. When Luz confronted Emma, she did not do anything. Emma said that it was not
her carpenter’s fault that Trix was run over by the truck because it was properly parked. She said
it was only an accident.
8. Luz responded that the truck could not have been properly parked because it moved
by itself in which Emma got mad afterwards. Saying that she should not blame the carpenter
because it was not supposed to be out on the streets in the first place. Emma also said that it was a
good riddance because Trix was a pest.
9. Getting very mad, Luz told Emma that she should get her another dog because Trix
was her only companion and is like a baby to her.
10. Emma refused all Luz demands and insisted that it was her fault.
11. On the other hand, Emma complains that Luz’s dog pulls out the plants in her yard,
dug holes in the lawn, frequently deposits wastes on the driveway, and pees infront of the house
that leaves a foul smell. One time, it chased Emma’s daughter down the road.
12. The defendant complained to Luz for about eight (8) to ten (10) times. Even
complained to the homeowners’ association, which Luz was a member of, after the dog chased her
daughter.
13. The homeowners’ association passed a board resolution banning wandering dogs
in the subdivision, warning Luz about her dog. It also says that wandering will be caught and
thrown into the municipal dog pound. A document entitled Board Resolution No. 3, series of 2009
issued by the Mountain View Subdivision Homeowners’ Association that is marked as Exhibit 1.
14. Emma’s construction foreman assured her that the truck was properly parked in
front of the house. He followed subdivision rules when he parked the truck. She adds that if the
dog was not out on its own, it would not have been killed. Luz has only herself to blame for letting
her dog roam the streets freely.
15. The witness for the defendant, Gregorio Timbol, 53 years old, married and a
carpenter, who was working on the renovation of Emma Crisostomo’ house. He mentions that the
truck was an old model in which he bought it second hand and had it overhauled and repainted.
16. Gregorio contends that he followed the subdivision rules. Parking the truck in front
of the Crisostomo’s house and put two large rocks against the back wheels, making sure that the
truck doesn’t roll back down the street.
17. He included that when he looked at the scene after the accident happened, the rocks
were no longer there. Even alleging that someone must have removed the rocks.

ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are presented for
discussion:
1. Whether or not Emma Crisostomo 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 Emma Crisostomo may be held liable for damages.

ARGUMENTS

I. Emma Crisostomo is liable for the commission of a quasi-delict that was the proximate
cause of Trix’s death.
A. The proximate cause of Trix’s death was due to the negligence of Emma
Crisostomo’s carpenter.
1. Art. 2176 provides that “whoever by act or omission causes damages to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.” In
the case of Guillang v. Bedania, (G.R. No. 162987, 21 May 2009, 588 SCRA 73)
to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (a)
damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of defendant; and (c)
connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of defendant and the
damage incurred by the plaintiff.
2. All the requisites are present in the case.
3. The contention now is that the accident of which the rocks that were
helping in enabling the truck to run down went missing or the mere fact that the
street itself is sloping, is an act of negligence that may be attributed to Emma’s
carpenter? If the proximate cause was an accident, clearly no liability can attach to
Emma. 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.
4. The death of Trix wouldn’t happen if there was proper diligence in
parking the truck especially if the street was sloping. The proximate cause of the
dog’s death is the sloping of the street in where they live. 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 vs. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, Aug.
28, 2009).
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.
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, Dec. 21, 1999)
6. The mere presence of the sloping street already negates Emma’s claim
that it exercised proper diligence in parking the truck. Failure to take proper
precautions in guarding against such a mishap is an act of negligence on the part of
Emma’s carpenter.

B. Emma Crisostomo may be held liable for the negligent acts or omissions of the
carpenter under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.

1. 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 “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.”
2. In order to escape liability for its employees’ negligent acts, Emma must
show that it observed “the diligence of a good father of the family” to prevent the
damage.
3. The defendant in this case, must, therefore, establish their claim or cause
of action by preponderance of evidence, evidence which is of greater weight, or
more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.
4. Unfortunately, Emma failed to show such evidence and that it exercised
such degree of diligence.
5. The mere fact that the street was sloping, they should not have parked
the truck there. Whether Trix died or not, considering that the street is sloping,
there is a tendency that the truck will back up on its own even if rocks were placed
to enable it to move.
6. Gregorio’s allegation that he put rocks and it could have been removed
is mere allegation. It is an age-old rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden
of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive, and convicting. Mere allegation
is not an evidence. (Noblejas vs. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., G.R. No.
207888, June 9, 2014)
 II. Emma Crisostomo is liable for damages.

1. Art. 20 of the Civil Code provides that “every person who, contrary to law, willfully
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 Emma Crisostomo has been clearly established. Hence, it cannot
escape liability for the payment of damages.
2. The facts bear out the claim that Luz suffered mental anguish, fright and serious
anxiety when she saw her dog writhing in pain and soon after died. Her emotional and mental
state is directly connected with the fact that the truck is back up against the tree is due to the
negligence of the carpenter and Emma’s lack of supervision.
3. Even assuming there was also negligence on the part of Luz, such was only
contributory and will not negate the award of damages.
4. The proximate cause of the death of Trix, Luz’s dog, is still Emma’s negligence.
5. Hence, Emma should still be primarily liable for the payment of damages.
6. Assuming Luz should have taken greater care in looking after Trix, 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 slopping street.
7. Contributory negligence, if there is any, will only serve to reduce the damages that
may be recovered by Luz.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgement be rendered

in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.

Cebu City, October 17, 2018.

 (Sgd.) ATTY. BLEST CARMELA KINTANAR
Counsel for Plaintiff
Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

Copy furnished:
ATTY. JANET UY DACUDAO
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.

(Sgd.) ATTY. BLEST CARMELA KINTANAR

Counsel for Plaintiff