Anda di halaman 1dari 7

REPUBLIC OF THE PHLIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 250
MUNTINLUPA CITY
ANTONIO BOMBA,
ISSA DOLERO,
MIKE KWARTO,
12345678
VINCENT MANAL, and
MAXI PARI
Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE No.


For: Damages

-versusCITY OF MUNTINLUPA,
Defendant,
x------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
PLAINTIFFS, through undersigned counsel, respectfully
submits this memorandum to wit:
Statement of the Case
This is an action for damages filed by the plaintiffs
based on Article 2176 of Civil Code, Quasi-Delict. Plaintiffs
allege that defendants negligence was the proximate cause
of the death of the deceased as represented by the plaintiffs.
The negligence, as the plaintiffs aver, was the failure of the
defendant to re-empty the septic tank of Muntinlupa Public
Market.
Defendant, on the other hand, argues otherwise.
Statement of Facts
1. On November 7, 2014, Sonveric Coquit, market master
of Muntinlupa Public market, filed a requisition request
with the Chief of Property of the City Treasurers Office
for the re emptying of the septic tank in Muntinlupa.

2. On November 9, 2014, an invitation to bid was issued to


Tinjus Dolero, Kim Manal, Mary Kwarto, Bob Bomba and
Pads Pari.
3. On November 10, 2014, Clarita Paramejas, assistant of
Sonveri Coquit, told Tinjus Dolero that he won the bid
and thereafter issued a notification of the same.
4. On November 15, 2014 Tinjus Dolero together with four
companions namely Jose Crisanta, Mark Balsa, Ephraim
Medina and Anna Asuncion entered the septic tank to
start the emptying of the same.
5. On November 22, 2014, the bidder Tinjus Dolero with
the four other companions were found dead inside the
septic tank, the bodies were removed by a fireman
named Protts Espirit, one body, that of Jose Crisanta
taken out by his uncle Rafael Crisanta and taken to the
Asian Hospital but expired there.
Issues
6. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT IS NEGLIGENT
FOR ITS FAILURE TO RE-EMPTY THE SEPTIC TANK
TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE PUBLIC.
7. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS ALLEGED
NEGLIGENCE IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE
DEATH OF THE DECEASED AND THEREFOR THE
HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ARE ENTITLED TO
DAMAGES.
Arguments
8. Defendants gross negligence was the proximate cause
of the death of the deceased.
a. Negligence has been defined as the failure to
observe for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care, precaution,
and vigilance which the circumstances justly

demand, whereby such other person suffers injury


(Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company, L-21291,
March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 674, 680).
b. To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting
from the negligence of another, a claimant must
establish the relation between the omission and
the damage. He must prove under Article 2179 of
the New Civil Code that the defendant's
negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury. Proximate cause has been
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
(Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181,
186).
c. Under the law, a person who by his omission
causes damage to another, there being
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done
(Article 2176, New Civil Code).
d. Plaintiffs fault the city government of Davao for
failing to clean a septic tank for the period of 19
years resulting in an accumulation of hydrogen
sulfide gas which killed the laborers. They contend
that such failure was compounded by the fact that
there was no warning sign of the existing danger
and no efforts exerted by the public respondent to
neutralize or render harmless the effects of the
toxic gas. They submit that the public
respondent's gross negligence was the proximate
cause of the fatal incident.
e. Warning signs of noxious gas should have been
put up in the toilet in addition to the signs of
"MEN" and "WOMEN" already in place in that area.
Such absence of warning signs is in violation of
safety and sanitary requirements. This is based on
Manny Ger Testimony.
In case the septic tank is re-emptied, is it
in your job to put up warning signs that
toxic gas may be emitted, as in the case if

the floor has just been mopped to put wet


floor sign?
Ans.

No, it not required for us to do so.

Then not putting up the warning sign that


toxic gas would be emitted if in case of reemptying of the septic tank would defeat
your purpose in making sure of the safety
of the people using the public toilet?
Ans.

Yes.

f. The lack of ventilation pipe in the septic tank is


another point to emphasize. Such absence of
ventilation pipe is in violation of the safety
requirements. Such is a requirement for the
emission of gases in both the toilet and the septic
tank to avoid accumulation of poisonous gases.
This is based on John Nitors testimony.
In your job as a janitor, how often do you
clean around the area of the septic tank?
Ans.

Twice a week.

In the 15 years of working as a janitor,


have you ever seen the septic tank reemptied?
Ans.

No.

Please describe the public toilet.


Ans. The public toilet has three (3) cubicles
and two (sinks) and there are no windows.
How about the septic tank, can you
describe it?
Ans.

Yes.

Please describe the septic tank and its


ventilation.
Ans.
It has cover. There is no other
means of emission of gas but through the
cover.
Given that the septic tank was not re
emptied for nineteen (19) years, do you
think if people were to open the septic
tank cover and without ventilation in the
public toilet, would such people inhale
toxic gas that are emitted from the same
that may cause their death?
Ans. Yes.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, it is respectful prayed that judgment be
rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant for
some of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) for each of the
plaintiff.
Such other reliefs as maybe just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
City of Muntinlupa, Philippines. January 25, 2015.
PARALEJAS AND QUITCO
Law Office
Counsel for the Plaintif
Unit 1, Southgate Building,
Madrigal Business Park,
Alabang, Muntinlupa City
By:
CLAIRE ANNE F. PARALEJAS
PTR No. 1234567 01.03.12
Muntinlupa City
IBP No. 112233 01.29.12

PPLM Chapter
Roll No. 09876
VERICSON D. QUITCO
PTR No. 0987654 01.03.12
Muntinlupa City
IBP No. 223344 01.29.12
PPLM Chapter
Roll No. 03456

Copy furnished by Registered Mail w/ Return Card:


PADRE RESURRECCION & RODRIGUEZ
Counsel for the Defendant
23rd Floor,
Multinational Centre
6805Ayala Avenue,
Makati City
EXPLANATION
Due to time, distance and manpower constraints,
copies of this Pre-trial Brief are being filed and served by
registered mail.
Muntinlupa City, February 18, 2015.
PARALEJAS AND QUITCO
Law Office
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 1, Southgate Building,
Madrigal Business Park,
Alabang, Muntinlupa City
By:
CLAIRE ANNE F. PARALEJAS
PTR No. 1234567 01.03.12
Muntinlupa City
IBP No. 112233 01.29.12
PPLM Chapter
Roll No. 09876

VERICSON D. QUITCO
PTR No. 0987654 01.03.12
Muntinlupa City
IBP No. 223344 01.29.12
PPLM Chapter
Roll No. 03456