Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 66 – Makati City

CRUELLA DE VIL,
Civil Case No. 513
Plaintiff,
For:Damages based on
-versus-
Quasi-Delict
JAMES P. SULLIVAN,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS

PLAINTIFF, Cruella De Vil, by Counsel and unto to this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

THE CASE

(1) This is a Complaint the Plaintiff filed against the

Defendant, James P. Sullivan for actual damages suffered by
the former arising from the 4 January 2019 motorcycle accident
involving the latter’s Honda Blue XRM 125 with plate no.
MY0516 in the sum total amount of Three Hundred Sixteen
Thousand One Hundred Seventy Four Pesos (Php316,174.00).

THE FACTS

(2) On 4 January 2019, Plaintiff, on route to Manila

Mariotte Hotel in Pasay City, rode for compensation a Honda
Blue XRM 125 motorcycle with plate no. MY0516 (motorcycle)
with a driver whom name was not obtained. As the motorcycle
was traversing along Kalayaan Flyover, bound to 32nd Street,
Bonifacio Global City (BGC), Taguig City, the same crashed on
its own due to the motorcycle’s driver’s reckless driving and the
Plaintiff fell, hitting her head enough for her to lose
consciousness.

1
 (3) When Plaintiff woke up, she was confined in St.
Luke’s Hospital, BGC, Taguig City. Plaintiff discovered that the
driver quickly left the scene of the accident leaving Plaintiff
unconscious. Plaintiff’s bag containing among others: an Apple
iPhone Xs, a ring adorned with a fourteen (14) carat white gold
feature stone and Plaintiff’s wallet containing more or less Three
Thousand Pesos (Php3,000.00), has gone missing.

(4) Armed with the particulars of the plate number,

Plaintiff inquired regarding the ownership of the motorcycle
from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and discovered that
the owner was a certain James Papa Sullivan whose registered
address was at unit 502, 8 Wack-Wack Condominium,
Mandaluyong City. Thereafter, Plaintiff went to the address and
met with herein Defendant. Plaintiff informed Defendant of the
accident and demanded that Defendant compensate her
accordingly. However, Defendant unsympathetically refused to
heed Plaintiff’s demand.

(5) To vindicate her right, Plaintiff was forced to file this

civil case for damages based on quasi-delict against Defendant
likewise incurring further expenses.

ISSUE

Whether the Defendant, James P. Sullivan is liable for the

damages Plaintiff, Cruella De Vil sustained from the 4 January
2019 motorcycle accident.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

THE DEFENDANT IS THE

REGISTERED OWNER OF
THE MOTORCYCLE, HENCE
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO
PLAINTIFF

(6) In this jurisprudence, well settled is the rule that the

registered owner of the vehicle is liable for quasi-delicts
resulting form its [vehicle’s] use. Hence, in the FEB Leasing and
Finance Corp. v. Spouses Baylon1, The Supreme Court ruled:

“In accordance with the law on compulsory motor

vehicle registration, this Court has consistently

1
G.R. No. 181398, 29 June 2011

Page 2 of 7
 ruled that, with respect to the public and third
persons, the registered owner of a motor
vehicle is directly and primarily responsible
for the consequences of its operation
regardless of who the actual vehicle owner
might be.” (emphasis supplied)

(7) In the same case, the Court further stated, as

consequence of this rule:

“… even if the vehicle has already been

sold, leased, or transferred to another
person at the time the vehicle figured
in an accident, the registered vehicle
owner would still be liable for damages
caused by the accident. The sale,
transfer or lease of the vehicle, which is
not registered with the Land
Transportation Office, will not bind third
persons aggrieved in an accident involving
the vehicle. The compulsory motor vehicle
registration underscores the importance of
registering the vehicle in the name of the
actual owner.” (emphasis supplied)

(8) Here, the facts that the Plaintiff rode a Honda Blue
XRM 125 motorcycle with plate no. MY0516 driven by a driver
whose name was not obtained and that while riding the same
the Plaintiff met an accident are established and undisputed.

(9) Furthermore, the LTO Certification No. 216243 dated

11 March 2019 marked and admitted as Exhibit B, certifying
the registered owner of the Honda Blue XRM 125 motorcycle
with plate no. MY0516 in the LTO records, unequivocally
identified Defendant as the registered owner of motorcycle,
notwithstanding the allegation of the Defendant that the
motorcycle has been sold.

(10) It must be noted that during trial, the Defendant

tried to undermine the contents of the certification2 but
nevertheless miserably failed to establish clear and convincing
evidence that said certification is not authentic. Plate numbers
do not contain any indication of the year it is registered on the
plate itself. Neither does Exhibit B mentioned any year. What it
showed was that as of the date of request, 11 March 2019, as
per LTO records the registered owner is a certain James Papa

2
TSN, 30 March 2019 Hearing, p. 6.

Page 3 of 7
Sullivan who has been unequivocally identified as herein
Defendant.

(11) Therefore, the inescapable and plain conclusion is

that the Plaintiff, while riding the motorcycle, met an accident
and incurred damages for which, under the registered owner
rule, the Defendant should be made liable as the registered
owner of the motorcycle in the LTO records.

TESTIMONY OF THE
WITNESSES FOR THE
DEFENDANT DESERVES
SCANT CONSIDERATION
FROM THIS HONORABLE
COURT

(12) Defendant tried to establish that he had long since

departed with the ownership of the motorcycle and as a scrap
of metal has sold the same. Defendant offered two witnesses:
Defendant himself and Mike Wazowski.

(13) In relation to the Defendant’s testimony, Plaintiff

would like to raise the fact that during Defendant’s cross-
examination, Defendant insisted that his residential address is
at 45 Calbayog cor. Samat St., Mandaluyong City, averring that
he never lived at unit 502, 8 Wack-Wack Condominium,
Mandaluyong City.3

(14) The Plaintiff wish to point out that during the pre-
trial, one of the stipulated and admitted facts is the fact that the
Defendant’s residential address is at unit 502, 8 Wack-Wack
Condominium, Mandaluyong City.4 This is further supported by
the fact that same address appeared in Exhibit B and as
testified by the Plaintiff, she met the Defendant at that address
as guided by the address so appearing in the aforementioned
Exhibit B just merely some months ago.

(15) Why then did the Defendant contradicted this when

he took the witness stand? Is it as part of the strategy to make
it appear before this Honorable Court that he is impoverished?
If so, then it must backfire. The Honorable Court should
consider this contradiction against Defendant’s credibility.

3
TSN, 13 April 2019 Hearing, p. 4.
4
Pre-trial Order

Page 4 of 7
 (16) On the other hand, with respect to the testimony of
the second witness for the Defendant, Mike Wazowski, Plaintiff
wish to emphasize that the witness categorically said that he
did not know the entire content of the Judicial Affidavit he had
presented before this Court.5 That in itself speak for the
credibility of the witness.

(17) All things considered, Plaintiff believes that this

Honorable Court should not give much weight to the testimony
of the witnesses for the Defendant as they lack credibility as
honest witnesses.

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO
THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF
DAMAGES CLAIMED WHICH
PLAINTIFF HAD
SATISFACTORILY PROVEN
BEFORE THIS HONORABLE
COURT
(18) To be entitled for the damages claimed in a civil case,
the quantum of proof necessary is that of preponderance of
evidence or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved.6

(19) In this case, the Plaintiff has successfully met the

said requisite quantum of proof when the testimony of the
Plaintiff, as supported by Exhibits D and E, clearly showed and
satisfactorily established that Plaintiff incurred Twenty
Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) in hospital bills and Six
Thousand Pesos (Php6,000.00) for medicines as a result of the
accident.

(20) Furthermore, attributable to the accident, Plaintiff

lost a diamond ring costing Two Hundred Five Thousand Nine
Hundred Pesos (Php205,900.00), a new iPhone XS valued at
around Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Four
Pesos (Php84,274.00) and Three Thousand Pesos (Php3,000.00)
cash as testified by the Plaintiff and supported by Exhibits F, F-
1, F-2, G and H.

(21) These pieces of evidence clearly presented superior

weight than that of the controverting evidence on the part of the
Defendant.

5
TSN, 27 April 2019 Hearing, p. 5.
6
Rev. Rules of Court, Rule 133, sec. 1.

Page 5 of 7
 (22) In fact, the only instance the Defendant touched
upon the subject relating to the claim for damages was during
the cross and re-cross examination of the Plaintiff, where the
Defendant attempted but miserably failed to disprove the claim
of the Plaintiff that she had the ring.7 The facts that Plaintiff was
on her way to Marriotte Hotel to attend to her bestfriend’s
surprise proposal with her as a conspirator-bearer of the
engagement ring and the existence of the receipt for the ring
which indicated Plaintiff as the purchaser who bought the ring
on the same date the accident transpired8 duly supported the
testimony of the Plaintiff that the ring was with her at the time
of the accident.

(23) Respecting the other claims Plaintiff has, particularly

as to the amount supported by Exhibits D, E, F, F-1, F-2 and G
and H, the Defendant never assailed the veracity of the
Plaintiff’s claim nor presented any controverting evidence at all.

(24) In summary, the Plaintiff has sufficiently established

the amount of actual damages plaintiff sustained from the 4
January 2019 accident.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff
respectfully prays that judgment be rendered holding
Defendant liable to the Plaintiff for the damages Plaintiff
sustained arising from the 4 January 2019 motorcycle accident
and ordering the Defendant to pay Plaintiff the amount of Three
Hundred Sixteen Thousand One Hundred Seventy Four Pesos
(Php316,174.00).

Other forms of relief, just and equitable under the

premises, are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, 7 April 2019.

7
TSN, 30 March 2019 Hearing.
8
Exhibit F and submarkings.

Page 6 of 7
 KAREN ANN TORRES-LAVERINTO
Counsel for Plaintiff
301 – 306, 32nd and 5th Building, 32nd Street,
cor. 5th Avenue, BGC, Taguig, Philippines
Roll No. 15130
IBP Lifetime No. 123456 (1-05-2019)
MCLE Compliance Certificate No.:
NCR-0123456 January 15, 2019

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. ANDREW LASTROLLO

Counsel for Defendant
259 Senator Gil Puyat Ave.
Makati City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Memorandum of Arguments is being filed and

served personally, respectively to this Honorable Court and the
other party.

KAREN ANN TORRES-LAVERINTO

Counsel for Plaintiff

Page 7 of 7