Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Region
Branch ___, Quezon City

JONNA DELA CRUZ Civil Case No. 27-112011

Plaintiff, For Damages

- versus –

MS HYPERMART, INC.

Defendant,

x---------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this
most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Jonna Dela Cruz (hereinafter “Jonna”) filed the present action for
damages against Defendant MS Hypermart, Inc. (hereinafter “MS
Hypermart”). Jonna attributes the injuries suffered by her minor son to MS
Hypermart’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 Dela Cruz family can be attributed to Jonna’s failure to
supervise her child.
 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. On May 11, 2010, Jonna and her minor child, 5-year old Ricky, went to
Gloria Supermart at around 10 a.m. in order to shop for groceries.

2. While negotiating the aisles in the supermarket, Ricky’s attention was

captured by a small red ball that was rolling on the floor. Being but a child
of tender years, possessed of the immature disposition of individuals of that
age, it was no surprise that Ricky chased after the ball down the aisle and
away from Jonna.

3. It was at this point that Ricky suddenly slipped and fell because he had
stepped on a wet section of the aisle. Liquid syrup had seeped out from a
bottle located on a nearby shelf and had formed a puddle on the floor.

4. Jonna immediately rushed to her son’s side. Ricky was crying in pain
and pointing to his right wrist.

5. Jonna called for help as there were no nearby store clerks. Rene
Castro (hereinafter “Rene”), the supermarket supervisor eventually came
over from another aisle in order to help out.

6. 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.

7. With the aid of Rene, Jonna managed to bring her child to the
Philippine Orthopedic Hospital where Ricky was attended to by Dr. John Lim.
Ricky was subjected to an x-ray and it was discovered that surgery was
necessary in order to restore the position of a fractured bone in his right
wrist.

8. Said surgery in fact took place and Ricky was thereafter required to
stay overnight at the hospital for purposes of pain management and care.
He was discharged the following day.
9. Ricky recovered the full use of his hand only after a period of 6 weeks.
In that span of time, he moved with discomfort and difficulty, unable to use
his hands.

10. Since the date of Ricky’s injury and even during his recuperation
period, Jonna suffered the mental anguish, fright and serious anxiety of a
mother who was confronted with the injury of a beloved child.

11. In addition to the physical suffering suffered by Ricky and the mental
and emotional strain on Jonna, they were further aggrieved because they
had to spend P22,840.00 in doctor’s fees, hospitalization expenses, and
medicine, as evidenced by receipts, marked as ANNEX ____.

12. 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

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 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.

II. Gloria Supermart is liable for the payment of damages.

1. 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. A. Gloria
Supermart is liable for the payment of actual damages.

2. “Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an

adequate compensability for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has
duly proved.” (Art. 2199, Civil Code)

3. Jonna incurred P22,840 in doctor’s 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 Supermart’s negligence in making sure that its premises were
safe and secure. B. Gloria Supermart is liable for the payment of moral
damages. 4. 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
defendant’s wrongful act or omission.” (supra)

5. 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.

6. A mother is naturally concerned over the health and well being of her
child. Hence, one can only imagine the suffering that she had to go through
when she saw her child slip and fall, undergo surgery and continue to suffer
pain and discomfort for 6 weeks after he was discharged from the hospital.

7. 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.
8. 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. C. Even assuming there was also
negligence on the part of Jonna, such was only contributory and will not
negate the award of damages.

9. The proximate cause of Ricky’s injury and the Bueno family’s

subsequent suffering is still Gloria Supermart’s negligence.

10. Hence, Gloria Supermart should still be primarily liable for the
payment of damages.

11. 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.

12. Contributory negligence, if there is any, will only serve to reduce the
damages that may be recovered by Jonna.

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 & 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:
MCLE No:

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.

(Sgd.) ATTY. REX BELTRAN

Counsel for Palintiff