Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Leonelle Mojal-Infante

LEGAL WRITING-February 22,2013

Annulment of Marra!e
"a!e 1 of #
Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
Manila, Branch 1
-versus -
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum
in the case:
The Case
Plaintif, Peter Banag fled this action against defendant
Arthur Sison, for the injuries that his daughter, Mary
sufered due to the latters dog attack and bites. Mr.
Banag claims Php 20,000.00 damages against Mr. Sison
for the psychological and emotional trauma and pain that
his daughter sufered.
The Facts
Peter Banag, the plaintif is the father of Mary. Mary who
is six years old went to Arthur Sisons house to buy ice-
candies. Fred Puzon, a concerned neighbor testifed for the
plaintif that he personally saw the following incident:
Leonelle Mojal-Infante
LEGAL WRITING-February 22,2013
Annulment of Marra!e
"a!e 2 of #
That, at around 3:00PM of September 12, Fred saw Mary
approached Arthur's gate and knocked to buy ice-candies.
When nobody responded, she tested and tried to push the gate
and it yielded. The dog jumped out and attacked her from
behind as she turned and ran to leave, biting her on the legs
and arms as she fell to the ground.
Fred come into rescue by kicking the dog away, stood and
protected her from further dog attacks, as the dog continued
barking as if ready to attack again.
Arthur, came out of his house and sent his dog into his
yard. He picked Mary up and brought Mary to a nearby clinic
for treatment.
The defendant, Arthur Sison who is the owner of the ice-
candy store and the dog alleged that he cannot grant the
demand of the plaintif to pay Php 20,000.00. He claims that
he should not be blamed for the accident that happened to
Mary, pointing out that he had exercised proper diligence in
making its premises safe for its customers by putting a
warning sign at the gate and that the accident was something
Mary and her parents had contributed to the cause of the
accident should any adult had accompanied the child in going
outside their home. Sison further stated that he was the one
who brought Mary to the nearby clinic for treatment and paid
the medical bills.
The Issues
1. Whether or not Arthur Sison exercised proper diligence in
making its premises safe for its customers.
2. Whether or not Marys accident was through her own
contributory negligence;
3. Whether or not the plaintif is entitled to the damages that
he is claiming for.
Leonelle Mojal-Infante
LEGAL WRITING-February 22,2013
Annulment of Marra!e
"a!e 3 of #
Sison on his letter addressed to Peter Banag, (Exh. A)
admitted that he has been selling ice-candies at the gate of his
house but further claims that his gate has an automatic
closer. However, he also admitted that at times he would left
the gate unlocked from the inside for his children coming in
and out.
In the case of Philippine National Construction Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467
SCRA 569;
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.
The elements of simple negligence: are (1 that there is lac! of
precaution on the part of the offender" #
The standard test in determining whether a person is negligent
in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or
property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the
person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person
injured as a reasonable conse$uence of the course actually pursued%
&f so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or
to ta!e precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the
failure to do so constitutes negligence#
''' ''' '''

First, in the above scenario, considering that Arthur was
selling ice-candies, it is well-established that majority of his
market are obviously kids in the neighborhood. However, at
the time the accident happened, Arthur lacks prudence when
for his own convenience, left his gate unlocked so that when
his kids gets in and out of his house, his nap will not be
Arthur, being also a father would have thought of how
kids in the neighborhood can freely roam around the area.
Leonelle Mojal-Infante
LEGAL WRITING-February 22,2013
Annulment of Marra!e
"a!e $ of #
Buying simple stuf from a nearby small stores like his is just
but normal. When he thought of taking a nap, it is most likely
that he wanted to have a complete rest; that is why he had left
the gate open just in case his kids will need to go in and out of
his gate. If he was prudent enough, he should have thought of
either closing his store for a while or at least to put the dog on
a secured cage or bind the dog to a safe place. Here, neither of
the above precautionary measures was not done nor
considered. Thus, Arthur was negligent in maintaining his
premises safe for his customers.
First, on Arthurs argument about the written warning
about the presence of the dog does not sufce the fact that he
indeed was exercising utmost precautions.
In the book of Philippine Law on Torts and Damages vol.
2 by J. Cesar S. Sangco on page 10 reads the wild beast
In England a similar principle is laid down in Ryland v.
Fletcher, where justice Blackburn said: We think that the rule of
law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land
collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes
must keep it at his peril, and if, he does not do so is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of
its escape
xxx xxx xxx
In the doctrine of the wild beast theory, it is said to be an
absolute liability thus, unnecessary for the plaintif to prove
that negligence was contributory. Thus, the defense of
defendant for taking all possible precaution is futile.
Furthermore, let us suppose we will accept the fact that there
was a sign on the gate, sign is not enough if the dog itself is on
the loose and can just attack anyone at any rate.

Second, on the argument that Mary would have been
accompanied by an adult in going out of their home, thus her
parents has no right to claim for damages due to contributory
Leonelle Mojal-Infante
LEGAL WRITING-February 22,2013
Annulment of Marra!e
"a!e % of #

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that
judgment issue against the defendant:
1. Declaring null and void the marriage contract entered
into by and between plaintif and defendant on June 5,
2013, before the Municipal City of Manila, Philippines.
Manila, Philippines. February 21, 2013.
Atty. Jun del Cruz
Counsel for Plaintif
Roll No. 1234.
IBP Receipt No. 56487
Ptr.No. 876
MCLE Comp. No.765

Infante Law and Associates
234 ABC Bldg., Taft Ave.,
Manila, Philippines
Email: infante@gmail.com
Telephone No. : 9876003
JANINA DELA CRUZ, subscribing un!r "#$%, %!r!b& !'"s!s #n
s$#$!s $%#$(
Leonelle Mojal-Infante
LEGAL WRITING-February 22,2013
Annulment of Marra!e
"a!e # of #
I #) $%! '!$i$i"n!r in $%! ins$#n$ c#s!*
I %#+! r!# $%! ,"r!g"ing P!$i$i"n #n $%! #--!g#$i"ns $%!r!in #r! $ru!
#n c"rr!c$ ", )& ".n /n".-!g! #n0"r b#s! "n $%! r!c"rs "n %#n*
I #$$!s$ $" $%! #u$%!n$ici$& ", $%! #nn!1!s $%!r!",*
I &ertfy t'at(
#* I %#+! n"$ c"))!nc! #n& "$%!r #c$i"n "r 'r"c!!ing in+"-+ing
$%! s#)! issu!s in $%! Su'r!)! C"ur$, $%! C"ur$ ", A''!#-s, "r
i,,!r!n$ Di+isi"ns $%!r!",, "r #n& "$%!r $ribun#- "r #g!nc&*
b* N" suc% #c$i"n "r 'r"c!!ing is '!ning in $%! Su'r!)! C"ur$,
$%! C"ur$ ", A''!#-s, "r i,,!r!n$ Di+isi"ns $%!r!",, "r #n& "$%!r
$ribun#- "r #g!nc&*
c* I, I s%"u- -!#rn $%#$ # si)i-#r #c$i"n "r 'r"c!!ing %#s b!!n ,i-!
"r is '!ning b!,"r! $%! Su'r!)! C"ur$, $%! C"ur$ ", A''!#-s, "r
i,,!r!n$ Di+isi"ns $%!r!",, "r #n& "$%!r $ribun#- "r #g!nc&, I
%!r!b& un!r$#/! $" n"$i,& $%is H"n"r#b-! C"ur$ .i$%in ,i+! 234
#&s ,r") suc% n"$ic!*
Doc. No. 123
Page No. 435
Book No. 098
Series of 2013