Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
7th Judicial Region
Branch 17
Antipolo City
LUZ DIAZ Civil Case No. 27-35363
Plaintiff, For Damages
- versus –
EMMA CRISOSTOMO
Defendant.
x---------------------x
MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the
above-titled case and avers that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Luz Diaz (“Luz”) filed the present action for damages against
Defendant Emma Crisostomo (“Emma”). Luz attributes the damages she
suffered for the loss of her dog Trix by defendant’s fault or negligence in
failing to exercise due care required in the circumstances, thereby making
her liable under Art. 2176 and Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
Defendant maintains that whatever injury or damages that she
incurred can be attributed to Emma’s failure to supervise her worker and
carpenter Gregorio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
1. Luz Diaz, the plaintiff, is a 65-year old widow and a resident of
Mountain View Subdivision, Antipolo Rizal. She owns a poodle
named Trix.
2. Emma Crisostomo, the defendant, is a 42-year old housewife. Her
house had an on-going renovation at the time of the incident.
3. Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors.
4. On October 25, 2010, Luz` dog Trix was run over by a truck parked in
front of Emma` house resulting to the death of the dog.
5. Gregorio Timbol, Emma`s foreman, parked the aforementioned truck
on a sloping street and put two large rocks against the back wheels to
make sure that the truck would not roll backwards.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
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.
ARGUMENT
I. Emma Crisostomo is liable for the commission of a quasi-delict that was
the proximate cause of Trix death.
.
A. The proximate cause of the injury that Luz suffered was the
negligence of Emma’s construction foreman.
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.”
2. It is undisputed that the dog Trix died under the wheel of the truck.
It was the presence of the truck that was the proximate cause of the
dog’s death. 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 Trix would have
not died if it was not run over by the truck.
3. The question now is, is there negligence that may be attributed to
Emma’s employee? On the other hand, if the proximate cause is the
latter’s negligence, they may be properly held liable under the
provisions of the Civil Code.
4. Negligence is 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 - All that the law requires is for a person to use
that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable
circumstances.” (Philippine National Railways v. C.A., G.R. No.
157658, October 15, 2007).
5. Applying the law to the present case, it is clear that Trix`s death
was caused by the truck that moved backwards, running over the dog.
Clearly, had the required diligence and care expected of a sensible
person had been exercised such fatal incident could have been
prevented.
6. Moreover, appropriate parking devices considering the sloping road
should have been utilized but was noticeably absent. This oversight
evidences the want of ordinary care on the part of Emma and her
foreman.
B. Emma Crisostomo may be held liable for the negligent acts or
omissions of her employee under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
7. 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.” Analogously, Emma, though not engaged in any
business or industry, exercises degree of control over her carpenter
Gregorio Timbol.
8. Applying the foregoing to the present case, it is clear that the
carpenters on duty that day were at that time in the service of Emma
and performing their regular duties.
9. The testimonies on record also indicated that Emma acknowledged
Mr. Timbol as her construction foreman.
10. All told, it is evident that all the conditions of a quasi delict are
obtained in the present case: Luz suffered an injury which in the
ordinary course of events would not have happened had it not been for
the negligence of Emma`s workers in not preventing the truck from
moving backwards and in not using appropriate parking devices.
Emma Crisostomo herself was liable for the acts of her workers
because she failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the
family in taking precautions against foreseeable accidents,
II. Emma Crisostomo is liable for the payment of damages.
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, she cannot escape liability for the payment of damages.
A. Emma Crisostomo is liable for the payment of actual damages.
1. “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)
2. Luz incurred loss of P15,000.00 in the death for her toy poodle Trix
as actual price of the dog, which is properly documented by receipts
(ANNEX “A”).
B. Emma Crisostomo is liable for the payment of moral damages.
3. 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.”
4. The facts bear out the claim that Luz suffered mental anguish and
serious anxiety when she lost her only pet and companion. Her
emotional and mental state is directly connected with the fact that her
dearest pet died due to the negligence of Emma Crisostomo and her
workers.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant by:
1) FINDING Emma Crisostomo liable for the commission of
negligent acts under Art. 2176 & 2180 when it failed to supervise its
employees and provide basic tools and device for proper parking in the
subdivision premise, and
2) ORDERING Emma Crisostomo to pay both actual damages of
15,000.00 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.
Cebu City, October 23, 2011.
BULAWIN ZAMAN AND LAYOSA LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff
th
7 Floor, New Building,
Jones Avenue, Antipolo City
By:
ATTY. MAKI ZAMAN
IBP Lifetime No. 14344; 5/10/2005
PTR No. 37437; 1/10/2018
Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001212
MCLE Compliance No. III –
000343
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. HOPE LU
Counsel for Defendant
Unit 1234, GMC Building Condominium,
Antipolo City
