Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Region
Quezon City

Joan Cruz
Plaintiff,

-versus Civil Case No. 221100

FOR: DAMAGES

Royal Supermart, Inc.

Defendant

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

MEMORANDUM
For the Plaintiff

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, unto

this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and presents this
Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Joan Cruz filed an action for damages of P500,000 against Royal

Supermart, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon for the injuries that
her son, Biboy, suffered at its supermarket, for the expense, and for the
emotional pain that it brought to her and her son.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On May 11, 2010, plaintiff Joan Cruz, 35 years old, married, and a
resident of 89, Lavender Street, Malate City, Metro Manila went to Royal
Supermart, Inc., with her son Biboy, to buy a tomato sauce and some other
things needed in the house.

2. While doing grocery, Biboy allegedly saw a rolling ball which prompted
him to run after it, which then led him to a section of the grocery, that
allegedly has wet floor that caused Biboy to slip and hurt his right arm.

3. Joan then rushed Biboy to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital where

he received diagnosis and treatment for a wrist fracture. Dr. John D. Lim, an
orthopedic surgeon, attended to him and did the operation on his right wrist.
Ms Cruz claimed that Biboy also stayed overnight at the medical facility and
recovered in about six weeks. During this span of time, she claimed that she
suffered mental anguish for what happened to her son and that she and her
husband spent P22,840 for doctor’s fees, hospitalization expenses,
medicines and the new toys they bought to distract Biboy from the pain and
discomfort he suffered.

4. Furthermore, plaintiff maintains that although a store clerk has helped

her carry Biboy to her car, the clerk was not very friendly and that there was
no supermarket cleaner nearby in the puddle of syrup or at least a sign that
could have warned people of the wet floor and the danger it presents. Thus,
plaintiff blames the management of Royal Supermart for its gross negligence
in failing to makes its premises safe for the customers.

5. On the other hand, Royal Supermart, through witness Rene Castro, the
supermarket’s supervisor of 5 years, denies liability claiming that they
exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe for its customers. The
supermarket further claims that the accident was beyond its control. They
further alleged that it was actually Biboy who knocked off the bottle of syrup
which caused the spill.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues to be resolved are the following:

1. Whether or not the management and employees of Royal Supermart
was grossly negligent in making its premises safe for its customers

2. Whether or not Royal Supermart is liable for damages

3. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

I.
Royal Supermart was grossly negligent in making its premises safe for its
customers.

1. In establishing gross negligence on the part of the defendant, we must

first define what negligence is according to law. Gross negligence is define to
be want of even slight care and diligence. (Mobile and M. R. Co. vs. Aschcraft
[1872] 48 Ala., 15) In addition, by gross negligence is meant “such entire
want of care as to raise a presumption that the person in fault is conscious
of the probable consequences of carelessness, and is indifferent, or worse,
to the danger of injury to person or property of others.” … The negligence
must amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property.”
(Wall vs. Cameron [1882] 6 Colo., 275; see also, The Law Governing Labor
Disputes in the Philippines by Francisco, 2nd ed., p. 877).

2. Specifically, negligence can be ascertained by the presence of the

following elements: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) Injury and (4) proximate
causation as defined in Casumpang, et. al. vs. Cortejo (GR No. 171127).
Firstly, Royal Supermart’s inherent duty is to ensure the safety of its
customers while doing their grocery. Specifically, one of these duties is to
make sure that their aisles are clean, dry and free from unnecessary
elements that would hinder customers’ mobility. Biboy’s accident clearly
manifested that Royal Supermart is negligent of their duty to ensure
customers’ safety. Secondly, breach of duty, as defined in the Casumpang
case, occurs when xxx fails to comply with, or improperly performs his duties
under professional standards. When Royal Supermart failed to assign an
employee to clean the spill on the floor or even put a signage to warn
customers, it clearly failed to comply its duty to ensure safety thus incurring
the breach. The third element of negligence, injury, was manifested in the
injury suffered by Biboy when he unknowingly slipped by stepping on a wet
floor of the supermarket. The proximate cause, being the fourth element of
negligence, 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 (G.R. No. 160110). As
established by the first three elements, the negligence of Royal Supermart is
undoubtedly the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by Biboy.

II.
Royal Supermart is liable for damages.

1. Based on Article 19 of the Republic Act No. 386 (Civil Code of the
Philippines), Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith. The Royal Supermart, Inc., in the
performance of this duties and lack of, should act with justice and give the
plaintiff her due.

2. The above provision is also supported by Art. 2176 of the same code,
which states that every person, or 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.
3. In the case, there exists an implied contract between the consumers
and the supermarket to ensure the former’s safety within the premises of
the supermarket. The fact that an accident has occurred means that the
supermarket committed culpa aquiliana. There is culpa aquiliana when there
is fault or negligence resulting in damage or injury to another. Therefore, the
Royal Supermart, Inc. is liable for its negligence.

4. Furthermore, in Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) and

Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc., “a careful examination of the
aforequoted complaint show that the civil action is one under Articles 2176
and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict
are present to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or
negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must
respond; (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.” This
is further reiterated in Fabre vs. Cabil (G.R. No. 111127).