ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

SAMPLE ANSWER NO. 1

FOR THE CASE OF LUZ DIAZ
MEMORANDUM
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
A. FACTS CLAIMED BY THE COMPLAINANT
1. Complainant is Ms. Luz Diaz (Ms. Diaz or Complainant hereinafter), 65
years old, a widow and a resident of Mountain View Subdivision, Antipolo,
Rizal.
2. Complainant owned a poodle named Trix. Trix has been complainants
constant companion since the death of Ms. Diazs husband eight (8) years
ago.
3. In the afternoon of October 25, 2010, Trix was crushed to death by a truck
owned by a carpenter parked in front of the house of her neighbor, defendant
Mrs. Emma Crisostomo (Mrs. Crisostomo or Defendant for brevity).
4. The carpenter worked for Mrs. Crisostomo, who was then renovating her
home.
5. The truck of Mrs. Crisostomos carpenter rolled backwards on the slopping
street from where it was parked in front of Mrs. Crisostomos house.
6. No one was in the truck at the time of the accident.
7. Ms. Diaz witnessed how Trix died while pinned down by the truck. She cried
and cried because she loved Trix and took care of her like a baby, being her
only companion since her husbands death.
B. FACTS CLAIMED BY THE DEFENDANT
1. Defendant Mrs. Emma Crisostomo is 42 years old, married, and a housewife.
2. Defendant Crisostomo is a neighbor of complainant and claims to have first
met her because she knocked on Ms. Diazs door three (3) years ago to
complain that her dog, Trix, pulled out the plants in her yard.
3. Defendant claims that the incident was not anyones fault because the dog
should not be out roaming the streets. Defendant further claims that the dog,
Trix, was a pesky dog and she has complained about it many times because
the dog dug holes in her lawn, deposited waste on her driveway, and also

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

peed in front of her house, leaving a foul smell. In fact, Mrs. Crisostomo
claims that Trix even chased her little girl down the road.
4. Defendant further claims that in fact, she complained against Trix about to
eight (8) to (10) times already in the last three (3) years and that that she
even complained to the homeowners association after Trix chased her little
girl.
5. Defendant claims that the homeowners association passed a board
resolution banning wandering dogs in the subdivision and warned Ms. Diaz
about her dog. Mrs. Crisostomo identified a document entitled Board
Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009 issued by the Mountain View Subdivision
Homeowners Association which was marked as Exhibit 1 for the
defendant.
6. Defendant also presented Mr. Gregorio Timbol, the carpenter who owned the
erring truck, who claimed that he properly parked the car in front of the
house of Mrs. Crisostomo in accordance with the subdivision rules.
7. Mr. Timbol claims that he even placed two (2) large rocks against the wheels
of the truck to make sure that it doesnt roll back down the street.
8. Mr. Timbol admitted that the truck was an old model, and that he bought it
second hand and had it overhauled and repainted.
9. Mr. Timbol claims that that claim of Mrs. Diaz that he carelessly parked his
truck is not true and that he followed all subdivision guidelines.
10. Mr. Timbol claims that someone must have removed the rocks because the
rocks were no longer there when he took a look at the scene after the
accident.
C. SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. The complainant and defendant are neighbors at the Mountain View
Subdivision.
2. The complainants dog, Trix, was killed by the truck of a carpenter when said
truck rolled backwards on the slopping street from where it was parked in
front of the defendants house on October 25, 2010.
3. The carpenter who owned the truck, Mr. Gregorio Timbol, was working as a
carpenter on the home renovation of defendant Mrs. Crisostomo at the time
of the incident.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

D. SUMMARY OF DISPUTED FACTS

1. Complainant claims that defendant should be held liable for damages
because the death of her dog, Trix, was the fault of defendants carpenter.
2. On the other hand, defendant claims that death of the dog was not anyones
fault but complainants because the dog should not be out roaming the
streets.
3. Complainant claims that the truck of Mr. Timbol was not properly parked
because it moved by itself.
4. Defendant, through her witness, Mr. Timbol claims that the truck was not
carelessly park and that he followed all subdivision guidelines.

II. ISSUES:
It is submitted that the following are the principal issues, which must be
resolved in the case:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEATH OF
COMPLAINANTS DOG, WAS THE FAULT OF THE
CARPENTER, MR. TIMBOL.

2. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT MAY BE HELD
LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSION OF HER
CARPENTER, MR. TIMBOL.

3. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT MAY BE HELD
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.


IV. ARGUMENTS
A. THE DEATH OF THE DOG WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT; THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF THE DOGS DEATH IS THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF MR.
TIMBOL.
1. It is an undisputed fact that the dog, Trix, was killed when she was crushed
to death by the truck of Mr. Timbol, as the said truck slid backwards on the
slopping street in front of the house of defendant.
2. It is submitted the fact that the truck moved by itself gives rise to the
presumption that it was not properly parked. This is an instance when the
principle of res ipsa loquitur may be properly applied.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

3. Likewise, considering the fact that the truck was admittedly already old, its
owner was careless when he parked the same in a slopping street precisely
because of the possibility that its brakes would fail.
4. Clearly, Mr. Timbol failed to take the proper degree of care, precaution and
vigilance under the circumstances to ensure that parking his truck in a
slopping street would not pose any danger the lives and properties of others.
In short, the death of the dog was not an accident but may be directly traced
to the negligence of Mr. Timbol.
5. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Philippine National Railways
vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 157658; promulgated on October 15, 2007;
536 SCRA 147, 154]:
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the
protection of the interest 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.
[Underscoring and highlighting supplied]
6. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that Mr. Timbol and his principal
may be held liable for quasidelict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
which expressly provides:
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 preexisting contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict
xxx.

[Underscoring provided]
B. THE DEFENDANT MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF HER
EMPLOYEE, MR. TIMBOL.

C. BY EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE CIVIL CODE AND UNDER PREVAILING
JURISPRUDENCE, THE DEFENDANT MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR
DAMAGES
1. Complainant begs to discuss these two (2) arguments jointly because the
same are inter-related and intertwined.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

2. It is also undisputed that, at the time of the accident, the owner of the erring
truck, Mr. Timbol, was working for defendant Mrs. Crisostomo as a carpenter
in the renovation of the latters house.
3. By express provision of the law, defendant Mrs. Crisostomo may be held
liable for the fault or negligence of her employee, Mr. Timbol. This is clearly
provided under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which provide in part that:

Article 2180. Xxx.

xxx
xxx
xxx

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.

[Underscoring supplied]
In the instant case, there is no showing that Mr. Timbol was acting outside
the scope of his assigned task at the time of the incident.
4. Furthermore, in the case of Secosa vs. Francisco [G.R. No. 160039
promulgated on June 29, 2004; 433 SCRA 273, 277], the Honorable Supreme
Court held that a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer arises
when an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, thus:
When an injury is caused by the negligence
of an employee, there instantly arises a
presumption that there has been negligence on
the part of the employer, either in the selection of
his employee or in the supervision over him after
his selection. The presumption may be rebutted by a
clear showing that the employer exercised the care
and diligence of a good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of his employees.

[Underscoring and highlighting supplied]
5. In the instant case, defendant utterly failed to allege, must less prove her due
care and diligence in the selection and supervision of her carpenter, Mr.
Timbol.
6. Hence, apart and separate from being liable for the damage cause by the
negligence of her employee under Article 2180 of the Civil Code as cited

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

above, defendant is herself also presumed to be negligent pursuant to the

ruling in Secosa vs. Francisco, as quoted above.
7. In the light of the foregoing, it is very clear that defendant Mrs. Crisostomo
may be held liable for damages under the circumstances for the negligence of
her employee, Mr. Timbol.
8. Defendant must be made to pay the complainant actual and/or
compensatory damages in the amount of PhP ____________________ as
replacement cost for the dog, Trix, as well as attorneys fees and cost of suit.
V. PRAYER/RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that JUDGMENT be rendered for the Complainant and against
the Defendant:
1. FINDING the Defendant liable for the death of Trix, the dog of
Complainant;
2. ORDERING the Defendant to pay Complainant actual and/or
compensatory damages in the amount of PhP __________________ as
replacement cost for Trix as well as Ten Percent (10%) Attorneys
Fees and cost of suit.
OTHER RELIEF AND REMEDIES as may be just and equitable under the
circumstances are also prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph