Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

Branch No. 28
San Fernando City, La Union

Mona Papa, Plaintiff

-versus- Civil Case No. 01

For Damages

Nestor Pol, Hermogenes Yapit,

Spouses Angelito and Zenaida Alviar, and
Rico Nario, Defendants
x---------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

Defendant Hermogenes Yapit, by undersigned counsel Atty. Franeli Jessa C.

Jaramilla, respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff filed the present action against the answering defendant herein attributing
the injuries sustained by the plaintiff to the negligence of defendant in carrying the
passengers safely.
Defendant maintains that he was in the exercise of extra-ordinary diligence required
by the circumstance on the day of the incident.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Defendant Hermogenes Yapit was driving the passenger jeepney bearing plate
number DVW 426 on or about October 13, 2000.
2. Rico Nario was driving the ten-wheeler truck bearing plate number DFD 824 on
the same date.
3. The passenger jeepney was travelling northward when all of a sudden, the truck
then travelling to the opposite direction swerved to the left and collided with the
passenger jeepney.
4. The truck driver swerved his steering wheel to the left in attempt to overtake a
tricycle, thereby causing the said accident.
 5. As a result thereof, the passengers of the jeepney and the driver were injured,
the latter in a serious condition, while Erlinda Papa, one of the passengers, died.

ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are presented for
discussion:
1. Whether or not defendant Hermogenes Yapit may be held liable for the
commission of a quasi-delict under
2. Whether or not Hermogenes Yapit may be held liable for damages

ARGUMENTS

I. Defendant Hermogenes Yapit is not liable for the commission of a quasi-delict that
was the proximate cause of the injuries

A. The proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff was the negligence
of the truck driver, Rico Nacario.

1. According to Art. 2176, whoever by act or omission causes damage to

another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. The Supreme Court has laid down conditions in order to establish
quasi-delict under this provision: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff;
(2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose
acts he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the
fault or negligence and damages incurred (Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Ching,
G.R. No. 161803).
2. The three condition obtain in the present case, the negligence attributable to
some other person other than the defendant.
3. It is undisputed that the plaintiff, as the legal heir of the deceased incurred
injuries from the death of Erlinda Papa. It was the presence of this negligence
which was the proximate cause of her injuries. As defined in Ramos v. C.O.L.
Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, proximate cause is 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. It is submitted that there would have been no collision of the two
vehicles if the truck driver did not overtake knowing full well that a jeepney
was approaching from the opposite direction. There was negligence in the
conduct of the truck driver.
4. Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct
of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would do.
5. Applying the law to the present case, it is clear that the injury sustained by
the plaintiff was not by accident. The truck driver was bound to observe
diligence in his actions while driving and was expected to consider any
approaching vehicle before overtaking. The event was not unforeseen for any
reasonable and prudent man will not overtake a vehicle if it is not safe to do
so. Passing another vehicle proceeding on the same direction should only be
resorted to by a driver if the highway is free from incoming vehicle to permit
such overtaking to be made in safety (Section 41(a), Republic Act [No.]
4136). The collision happened because of the recklessness and carelessness
of the truck driver, Rico Nacario, who was overtaking a tricycle. The truck
driver, before deciding to overtake, must have made sure that he has
sufficient distance to return to his lane or line in order not to endanger the
vehicle being overtaken or the jeepney coming from the opposite direction.
Despite knowledge of the situation, he decided to overtake although he could
not completely maneuver safely, thereby the collision. Clearly, had the truck
driver not imprudently overtaken the tricycle under such circumstances, the
truck would not have encroached on the jeepney, in the process hitting latter,
causing the injuries and subsequent death of Erlinda Papa.
6. On the part of the defendant jeepney driver, he maintains the fact that his
exercise of due diligence with regard to the circumstances could not have
prevented the injury caused. In fact, he was keeping the right speed and tried
to slow down the jeepney when he saw the over-speeding truck approaching
and overtaking. However, because of the imprudence of the truck driver, the
unfortunate incident was not avoided.
 II. Defendant Hermogenes Yapit may not be held liable for damages for want of
negligence on his part.

1. There is no merit in the argument of the plaintiff that defendant should be

made liable for the obligation imposed under Art. 1276 because the
proximate cause of the collision of the jeepney and truck is attributable
solely to the negligence of the driver of the truck.
2. The doctrine under Art. 2176 aims to provide compensation for the harm
suffered by those whose interests have been invaded owing to the conduct
of other. The law requires every negligent person who causes damage to
another to indemnify the latter for the same. However in this case, the law
should not deny relief to the defendant when there is injury sustained but
the negligence causing it was not committed by him but by other person.
Therefore, that person who caused it must be held solely liable.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be
rendered in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff by:
1) Finding defendant Hermogenes Yapit not liable for the commission of negligent
acts under Art. 2176
2) Ordering Rico Nacario, the person solely liable for the negligence to be liable for
the damages prayed for by the plaintiff.
Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Santa Cruz, Ilocos Sur, December 12, 2017.

ATTY. FRANELI JESSA C. JARAMILLA

Counsel for the Defendant
PTR No. 12345-09-10-17:SFC,LU.
IBP No, 12345-09-10-17:SFC, LU.
Roll No. 654321 09-10-17: Manila
Rm. 2 G/F Jaramilla Building,
Capariaan, Santa Cruz, Ilocos Sur