Outline

I.Intro

(After group 9 introduces)

Gigi: Atty. *name*, respectfully appearing for the defendant, your Honor.
Apple: Atty. *name*, also for the defendant, your Honor.

2. State position/ Provide judge with roadmap of argument.

Apple: Your honor, the defendant maintains that it is not liable for the injuries sustained by
plaintiffs son and that this case be dismissed for lack of merit. We ask that plaintiffs claim for
damages be denied for (the following) three reasons:
1. First, plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence, among others, the
negligence of the defendant, and the connection of cause and effect between the
negligence and the damages incurred, contrary to what every tort cases under Article
2176 of the Civil Code has maintained.
2. Second, as there is no sufficiently proven existence of fault or negligence on the part of
the defendant, liability is not established thereby.
3. And third, there is no justification of the award demanded being proportional to the
injuries suffered

3. Present your argument/ Rebut plaintiffs claims

Gigi: With respect to the first point, your honor, plaintiff argued that Royal Supermarts
management and staff are at fault for failing to clear the area of items that draw children away
from their parents,like the loose ball that rolled down the aisle, and hazards that could jeopardize
the safety of the customers, such as the puddle on the floor from carelessly spilled liquids. It
follows that what Mrs Cruz considers to be the indicator of

negligence in the case at bar is defendants maintenance of nuisances. Article 694 of the Civil
Code defines a nuisance as an act,omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else that, for one, injures or endangers the health or safety of others. In one
jurisprudence, attractive nuisances were defined as dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a
character likely to attract children in play. However, nuisances are considered as such if
maintained with the absence of the exercise of ordinary care. In the present case, neither the ball
nor the puddle could be considered as attractive nuisances. The ball could not be among the
merchandise in one of the stores grocery aisles as naturally, grocery items are displayed in such
and not toys. It also could not have rolled down the aisle from ineffective stacking or any activity
the employees do in their everyday course of duty.

5. Conclude your argument and restate your position.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant, Royal Supermart, respectfully requests that this Court
finds that:
Defendant be declared not liable for injuries sustained by plaintiffs son;
This case be dismissed this for lack of merit; and
Plaintiff be denied of her P500,000.00 claim for damages against defendant Royal
Supermart.
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Region
Quezon City

JOAN CRUZ, CIVIL CASE NO.

______ Plaintiff,
-versus F O R:

ROYAL SUPERMART, INC., DAMAGES

Defendant.
X--------------------------------------------/

MEMORANDUM
Defendant Royal Supermart, Inc., through the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this memorandum as follows:
Statement of the Case
Joan Cruz filed an action for damages of P500,000.00 against Royal Supermart,
Inc. for the physical injuries of her son, Biboy, suffered at the defendants supermarket,
and for the medical expenses and the emotional anguish that it brought to her and her
son.
Statement of the Facts
On May 11, 2010, at approximately 10am, plaintiff Joan Cruz and her five-year-
old son, Biboy, were shopping for groceries at Royal Supermart. Plaintiff averred that
while negotiating the aisles of the supermarket, Biboys attention was caught by a loose
red ball rolling on the floor, which he then ran after. As per her statement, Biboy slipped
with a heavy bang on a wet section of the aisle shortly thereafter he chased the ball.
She testified that she saw a puddle on the floor where Biboy crashed down and claimed
that such puddle was caused by a liquid syrup that seeped out from a leaking bottle in a
nearby shelf. Further, she stated that after Biboy slipped, he shrieked from pain in his
right wrist which he used to stop his fall.

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. As testified by plaintiff, Biboy
also stayed overnight at the medical facility and recovered in about six weeks. During
this span of time, plaintiff claims that she, as Biboys mother, has suffered some mental
anguish for what happened to her son and that she and her husband have spent
P22,840.00 for doctors fees, hospitalization expenses, medicines and the new toys
they bought to distract Biboy from the pain and discomfort he suffered.
Moreover, 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 the puddle of syrup or at least a sign that could have warned people of
the wet floor and the danger it presents. Accordingly, she is blaming the management of
Royal Supermart for its gross negligence in failing to make its premises safe for the
customers.

On the other hand, defendant Royal Supermart, through witness Rene Castro,
the supermarkets supervisor of 5 years, denies liability for all damages as it claims that
it exercised proper diligence in making the premises safe. Mr. Castro was at the store at
the time of the incident. As testified, he was fixing new stocks of noodles on the shelves
when he heard the commotion one aisle away. He then rushed to the scene where he
saw Biboy lying on the floor while crying with pain, and his mother, Ms. Cruz who was
trying to minister to him. He, too, saw a puddle on the floor where the child lay. Contrary
to Joans testimony, however, he asserts that the puddle was from the items that had
fallen from a nearby shelf and believes that the syrup must have come from one of the
bottles that broke and spilled its contents onto the floor, which Biboy has knocked off
from the shelf when he ran wild down the aisle, supposedly running after the loose ball.
Mr. Castro then carried Biboy to his mothers car and accompanied them to the
Philippine Orthopedic Hospital.
 Aside that the accident was one that cannot be reasonably anticipated and was
beyond the supermarkets control, defendant maintains that it is the responsibility of
parents, who often necessarily bring their child into the supermarket, to look after them
so as to prevent them from misbehaving, causing damage to the merchandise, or
getting injured.
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 not grossly negligent in making its premises safe for its
customers.
The presence of negligence on the defendants part is determined through establishing
first how negligence is defined by law. One classic definition of what negligence is that it is the
omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing of something which a
prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Plaintiff argues that the supermarket and its employees shall be held responsible
for negligence in view of the fact that the defendant should have been on the lookout of
the nuisances they ought to keep in working order. The latter is alleged to be liable as
they failed in securing the area of objects which attract the parents children away from
them, such as the ball that the child pursued, and other dangers that may put the
customers safety at risk, like the spilled liquids on the floor.

What may arise therefrom is that what indicates negligence in the present case is
the sustenance of nuisances of the defendant. A nuisance is defined, under Article 694
of the Civil Code, as an act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else that, for one, injures or endangers the health or safety of others.
Nuisances can be hazardous distinctly possible to entice children in leisure, which
nevertheless are deemed as attractive if preserved without the presence of the
employment of standard care and supervision.
In the case present, neither of the two particulars, the ball nor the puddle, could
be reckoned to as attractive nuisances. The defendant adhered to standard care and
supervision in keeping its premises in order and good condition. It could be that the said
ball was not among the goods in one of grocery aisles of the supermart, where grocery
items, not toys, are naturally set out by them. The ball could not have slipped by the
aisle from inefficacious stockpiling or other bustle the staff do in their daily track of task
and assignment.
The supermart could not have alerted the shoppers of the unforeseen liquid on
the floor, in the possible circumstance, preceding the accident of child, that the puddle
was not there, as its probability is attested by Castro in his statement that from the
position of child, he could infer that the child had bumped into the shelf containing syrup
bottles and knocked off some of them.

The possibility of such circumstance, the mishap being brought about by a

means within the supervision of the individual indicted for the negligence, conveys that
the occurrences of the accident and other possible causes, such as the incidental
leakage of syrup bottles at the certain point in time of the accident, were beyond the
power and control of the supermarket to carry out or impede.
What can be contended is that Castro was solely making speculations on
account that when the accident occurred, he was at another aisle and how the puddle
on the floor took place was unforeseen on his part. However, the same can be claimed
with regard to the statement of the plaintiff to which she did not witness the falling of her
child from a distance until the precise time he crashed onto the floor, where it is doubtful
that she can make certain easefully that the area her child fell on was wet before the
said incident.
As provided under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, in every tort case, the plaintiff
has to prove by a preponderance of evidence, among others, the fault or negligence of
the defendant, and the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence
and the damages incurred. In the case at hand, there is failure on the part of the plaintiff
to set up evidence adequate to prove such negligence.
The fact that the defendant committed no gross negligence in the maintenance of
the its premises safety or that such gross negligence is not established sufficiently, can
be deduced therefrom.
II.
Royal Supermart is not liable for damages.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code states that the owners and managers of an
establishment will be held liable in the event that their employees, through acts or
omissions, causes damage in the exercise of their functions. However, this will all rely
on the liability of their employee under Article 2176, as provided below:
Art. 2176. 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.
Royal Supermart can only be held liable once it is proven that their employee
was at fault or was negligent in the exercise of his functions in monitoring the premises
of the supermarket. As earlier discussed, neither of the two particulars involved in the
case at bar, the ball nor the puddle, could be reckoned to as attractive nuisances which
the defendant has maintained in its premises. The puddle, as asserted, came from a
broken bottle that was knocked off from a shelf, which the child could have bumped
from running. There is no clear evidence showing that such puddle, which was allegedly
the cause of Biboys slip, was a result of defendants negligence or imprudence. Hence,
Royal Supermart cannot be held liable for the damages which the plaintiff sustained.
III.
Joan is not entitled to recover damages.
Joan Cruz is insisting just compensation for moral and actual damages that
amounts to P500,000.00.
Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, one is entitled to a just compensation, only
for such financial loss suffered. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages. The plaintiff proved the expenses she made from paying for
her sons medical expenses. Should Royal Supermart be accountable for damages,
Joan Cruz can recover the money spent for actual damages.
Plaintiff cannot recover moral damages that amounts to P500,000.00. While Article
2217 of the 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.
Plaintiff submitted proof of expenses made from having to divert her sons attention from
the pain he experienced. What, then, of the mental strain the plaintiff experienced from
seeing her only son hurt? Principal responsibility over a non-emancipated child belongs
the parents. Plaintiff recognizes 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
Biboys 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 inside the
supermarkets property, Joan cannot hold the Royal Supermarts management or its
personnel directly accountable for the well-being of her son, because such
accountability is inherently hers as his parent and designated guardian.
By permiting her son of tender age to run down the aisle without her supervision,
allowing him to reach a significant gap from where she stood, there is a clear display of
contributory negligence on the plaintiffs part.
With contributory negligence established, the 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, it is respectfully prayed to the Court that:
1. Defendant be declared not liable for injuries sustained by plaintiffs son;
2. This case be dismissed this for lack of merit; and
3. Plaintiff be denied of her P500,000.00 claim for damages against defendant
Royal Supermart.

Other reliefs, just and proper, are likewise prayed for.

Cagayan de Oro City, August 25, 2017.