Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
by
an
agency
or
instrumentality
within
the
exclusive
xxx
xxx
Civil Code lists mental anguish, fright, and serious anxiety as examples
of moral damage, in the case in question, there is no justification of the
award demanded being proportional to the injuries suffered. The
Supreme Court stated the purpose of moral damages in Lorzano v.
Tabayag, G.R. No. 189647, as follows:
Moral damages are not intended to enrich the complainant
at the expense of the defendant. Rather, these are awarded only
to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering that
resulted by reason of the defendants culpable action. The
purpose of such damages is essentially indemnity or reparation,
not punishment or correction. In other words, the award thereof
is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the
spiritual status quo ante; therefore, it must always reasonably
approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the
wrong committed.
Jonna presented evidence of expenses from having to distract
her son from the pain he suffered. What, then, of the mental stress
Jonna suffered from seeing her only son hurt? Primary responsibility
over a non-emancipated child belongs to his parents. Jonna herself
acknowledges this responsibility when she was questioned.
Q: But when you took him there, you of course are aware
that the supermarket did not have a leave-your-child
service?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Consequently, you were aware that the responsibility for
looking after Rickys needs and safety while in the
supermarket is primarily in your hands as his mother?
A: Yes, Sir, but supermarkets always expect children to
come with their parents and so it has to make sure that the
place is safe for children.
Q: But do you agree that, as his mother, he is safer when
he stays by your side in a public place like a supermarket?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Still, you let him slip away from your control, when he
ran after that ball?
A: Yes, Sir, but the supermarket should keep their eyes
open for things like loose balls running down their aisles,
drawing children away from their parents, and letting them
slip on carelessly spilled liquids.
Under Article 20 of the Family Code, this authority and
responsibility may not be renounced or transferred except in cases
authorized by law. Even within the supermarkets premises, Jonna
cannot hold the supermarkets management or its staff principally
accountable for the welfare of her son, because such accountability is
inherently hers as his parent and designated guardian.
By allowing her child of tender age to run down the aisle without
her supervision, allowing him to reach a considerable distance from
where she stood, there is a clear display of contributory negligence on
Jonnas part.
With contributory negligence established, the lingering legal
question may now be answered. Under Article 2179 of the Civil Code,
when the plaintiffs negligence was only contributory, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. Article 2214 further supports this. Even in quasi-delict cases,
the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages
that she may recover. The Supreme Court held in National Power
Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan, 572 SCRA 71, that the
underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is
partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover
damages in full, but must bear the consequences of his own
negligence.
Prayer
Wherefore, premises considered, defendant Gloria Supermarts, Inc
respectfully prays the Court to:
1. Declare the defendant not liable for injuries sustained by
plaintiffs son;
2. Thereby dismiss this case for lack of merit; and
3. Deny the plaintiffs demand for the defendant to pay her 500,000
PHP in damages