MEMORANDUM

Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero

Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

Republic of the Philippines

12th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 14
Cotabato City

RICO SINAGASA
Plaintiff,

- versus –

BEN MINAMALAS TAXI

COMPANY and MANOY
KASKASERO,
Defendants.

CIVIL CASE No. 0003

For:

DAMAGES

x---------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THIS HONORABLE COURT,

defendants, through the undersigned counsel, submits this
Memorandum for the Defendants and states that:

1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.1 On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed before this Honorable

Court a complaint for damages, premised on the ground that
the plaintiff suffered physical injuries caused by the defendant,
and that the latter failed to pay the demand for the expenses
incurred on medications and confinement;

1.2 That the Defendant received a copy of the complaint on

December 18, 2019. However, there were no copy of summons
attached therein;

1|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

1.3 That the Defendant filed his answer on December 27, 2019,
nine (9) days after he received the said complaint and that his
answer was timely filed to this Honorable Court within fifteen
(15) days as required by the law;

1.4 The complaint raised this issue: Whether or not the

defendants are liable to the plaintiff for damages amounting to
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for actual or
compensatory damages, One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P150,000.00) for loss of earning and income, One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for moral damages, Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for attorney’s fees,
and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for litigation
expenses;

1.5 The pre-trial conference was set and terminated on February

27, 2020. Admitted facts were stipulated, issues were defined
and pieces of evidence were offered and marked. After the pre-
trial of this case, trial on the merits ensued.

2. THE PARTIES

2.1 Defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi Company is a domestic

corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines
engaged in the business of land transportation of passengers
and a holder of certificate of public convenience with principal
place of business at Notre Dame Avenue, Cotabato City;

2.2 Defendant Manoy Kaskasero is working under Ben Minamalas

Taxi Company as a driver of one of its taxi;

2.3 Plaintiff Rico Sinagasa is a contractual engineer at ABC

Company.

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

3.1 The plaintiff alleged that on December 5, 2019 at about 7:35 in

the morning, a passenger taxi owned by defendant Taxi
Company and driven by defendant Kaskasero hit plaintiff
Sinagasa while crossing the pedestrian lane;

3.2 That alleged accident where claims arise are untrue. The truth
of the matter is that on December 5, 2019, Thursday, at about
7:35 in the morning, the area along Coland System
Technology, Inc. to Notre Dame – RVM College of Cotabato,

2|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

Sinsuat Avenue is crowded with students. The flow of traffic is

slow and traffic enforcers are present at every pedestrian lane
to guide the motorists and pedestrians. Hence, it is impossible
for the passenger taxi to hit the complainant with great impact
at high speeds as alleged in the Complaint;

3.3 That the attached Medical Certicate in the complaint to prove

injury was maliciously obtained by the plaintiff. There was an
absence of evidentiary matter supporting it’s claim that there
were injuries sustained. The certification only stated that
there was medical examination conducted but did not
thoroughly describe the injuries sustained;

3.4 That the documents attached in the complaint to prove the

expenses incurred were unsigned and/or otherwise fabricated
by the plaintiff. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that he
underwent surgery and monthly check-ups supported by mere
acknowledgement receipts. The receipts were even undated
and there is lack of substantial amount of details as to the
medications or services availed thereof;

3.5 That the attached demand letter were not actually received by
either of the defendants and such letter was unsigned by the
Plaintiff;

3.6 That there was failure to serve summons upon the defendants.
Such were not personally received by defendants or by any
person authorized by law to receive summons pursuant to
Section 18, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the Regional
Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendants; and

3.7 That the appearance of defendants before the court to

question its jurisdiction over their person is not tantamount to
voluntary submission to the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to
Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

4. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

4.1 Whether or not defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi Company

should be held liable for damages to plaintiff Sinagasa, being
the employer of defendant Manoy Kaskasero;

4.2 Whether or not defendant Manoy Kaskasero, as the driver,

should be held liable for damages to herein plaintiff;

3|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

4.3 Whether or not plaintiff Sinagasa is entitled to any damages;

5. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

5.1 Defendant Manoy Kaskasero is not liable for damages;

5.1.1 Defendant Manoy Kaskasero is a holder of a Professional

Driver’s License Number M0-01-23456. He consistently
attended seminars for drivers; he always wear the
company’s uniform for taxi drivers; he and his co-drivers
always read the guidelines of the company before
working, as it is posted outside its premises. Thus, there
is a presumption that he possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications to be employed as the
professional driver of defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi
Company. A Drug Test, LTO Clearance, NBI Clearance and
Medical Certificate for Employment was admitted as
evidence to prove the matter marked as Exhibits, “3”,
“”4-A”, “4-B” and “5”

5.1.2 The Defendant was in fact an outstanding employee

through exhibiting extraordinary diligence in
transporting his passengers safely and was awarded a
Certificate of Appreciation by his employer (Exhibit “2”);

5.1.3 Defendant’s corroborative witness, Datu Kobe B. Ryant

who is traffic enforcer stationed at the place where the
alleged accident took place and was able bear witness of
the whole incident. The witness was able to point the
true events that took place on December 05, 2019. He
pointed out that flow of traffic is slow and traffic
enforcers are present at every pedestrian lane to guide
the motorist and pedestrian on the day of the accident
happened.

“Kasi ganyan man yan kada umaga

Sir ba, madami kasi estudyante diyan
banda sa Coland kaya traffic
masyado. Binabantayan ko Sir yung
mga tatawid Sir.”

In fact and in fine, the Plaintiff, was himself negligent in

his act of suddenly crossing on the front of the taxi
driven by Manoy. The Plaintiff was perceived to be only
maliciously putting up a show to extort from herein
Defendant, as attested by the witness:

4|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

“Nagulat na lang ako Sir kay tumawid

yung lalaki mag-isa. Nagabigay kasi
ako ng go signal kung pwede na
tumawid kasi pinapatigil ko yung mga
sasakyan. Nung tumawid siya,
tinamaan na siya nung taxi ni Manoy.”

“Kay di man mabilis yung patakbo

tapos parang nagpatihulog lang yung
lalaki sa harap nung sasakyan. Tapos
nagupo siya sir. Tumayo siya tapos
pinagsisigawan niya na yung drayber
nung taxi. Basi bedrama bo anto.
(Parang nagddrama lang yun)”

The witness further attested that he saw a brief

commotion that ended with the Plaintiff walking away:

“Naglakad lang din siya palayo tapos

nagsakay ng jeep doon sa may RVM
banda sa overpass.”

5.1.4 The Plaintiff was the immediate cause of his injury by

crossing the road without the aid of the on-duty Traffic
Enforcer. Such was proven by the testimony of the
passenger of the taxi Jane de Leon;

“…we were around the Coland school,

we stopped by a pedestrian lane
because a traffic aide stopped us, and
when he signalled us to go, the driver
accelerated. Suddenly, a person
walked in front of the taxi, reason why
he was hit.”

5.1.5 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.
The defendant must thus be held liable only for the
damages actually caused by his negligence

Article 2179 of the New Civil Code provides that:

“When the plaintiff’s negligence was the immediate

and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only

5|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of

the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be awarded.”

5.1.6 Plaintiff was unable to present any convincing piece of

evidence claiming that there was indeed an accident that
took place from which the claim of damage arises. The
presented evidence were mere fabrications and has no
bearing under the law;

5.1.7 Further, it cannot be said that the accident was due to

the lack of due care and diligence of Manoy Kaskasero.
As stated above, MANOY exercised due diligence while
driving the vehicle because of his experience and
expertise and the circumstances revolving the facts of
this case;

5.1.8 Moreover, Defendant Kaskasero always gave audible

signal by sounding the horn, and gave visible signal
every time he moved forward as there is ongoing traffic
on that day because it is pick hours as the students were
in hurry in going to school;

Section 44 of R.A. No. 4136 provides:

“Section 44.Signals on starting, stopping or turning-

(a) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before

starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, shall
first see that such movement can be made in safety,
and if any pedestrian may be affected by such
movement, shall give a clearly audible signal by
sounding the horn, and whenever the operation of
any other vehicle approaching or following may be
affected by such movement, shall give a signal
plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicles of
the intention to make such movement.

(b) The signal herein required shall be given by

means of extending the hand and arm beyond the
left side of the vehicle, or by an approved
mechanical or electrical signal device.”

6|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

5.1.9 In this case, defendant exercise the extra ordinary

diligence required by law to a common carrier, therefore
he must not be held liable.

5.2 Defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi Company is not liable for

damages to the plaintiff;

5.2.1 Herein Plaintiff would like to impress upon this

Honorable Court that Defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi
Company should be held liable under the Civil Code
because he is the employer of Manoy Kaskasero;

Article 2184 of the New Civil Code provides that:

“In a motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It isdisputably presumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.”

While Article 2180 of the New Civil Code reads:

“xxxx

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.

xxxx

The responsibility treated of in this article shall

cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.”

5.2.2 Defendants, on the other hand, argues that the Article

2184 of the New Civil Code does not find any
applicability in this case because BEN MINAMAMALAS
TAXI COMPANY exerted due diligence to prevent the
misfortune by carefully and diligently selecting MANOY
KASKASERO as their employee;

7|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

5.2.3 Case law teaches that for an employer to have exercised

the diligence of a good father of a family, he should not
be satisfied with the applicant’s mere possession of a
professional driver’s license; he must also carefully
examine the applicant for employment as to his
qualifications, his experience and record of service;

5.2.4 Ben Minamalas Taxi Company has an employee-

mechanic, personally named Ronald Biaca, who
maintained the condition of the taxi driven by Manoy
Kaskasero. By way of practice, before Manoy Kaskasero
would embark on an errand, Ronald Biaca would
personally inspect, check, and ensure that the vehicle is
road worthy;

5.2.5 Further, Manoy Kaskasero has been a longtime driver for

Ben Minamalas Taxi Company, since 2010. During said
period, Manoy Kaskasero was never sanctioned for any
traffic violation nor was he involved in any vehicular
accident. As a matter of fact, he was an outstanding
employee of Ben Minamalas Taxi Company;

5.2.6 The subject of this case is the first time that Manoy
Kaskasero was ever involved in any alleged vehicular
accident. Thus, there is no reason to believe that Ben
Minamalas Taxi Company should be held liable for
damages because the latter exerted due diligence in the
selection of Manoy Kaskasero and in the maintenance of
the vehicle.

5.2.7 Granting without admitting that the collision happened

due to the negligence of Manoy Kaskasero, Ben
Minamalas Taxi Company, as the employer of the former,
should not be held liable for the negligent acts of the
former.

5.2.8 Here, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in

establishing fault or negligence on the part of the
defendant1. The presumption under in Article 2180 of
the New Civil Code has been disputed and defendants
have presented evidence to rebut said presumption as
there was no negligence on the part of the defendant Ben
Minamalas Taxi Company in the hiring and supervision

8|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

and that there is failure on the plaintiff to prove that the

employer remised to such duty.

5.2.9 Hence, defendant Ben Minamalas Taxi Company should

not be held liable for any damages.

5.3 Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages;

5.3.1 The plaintiff prayed to this Honorable court the

following:

i. Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for

actual or compensatory damages;
ii. One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) for
loss of earning and income;
iii. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for
moral damages;
iv. Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for
attorney’s fees; and
v. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for
litigation expenses.

5.3.2 As discussed above, the proximate cause of the alleged

injuries sustained by the plaintiff was due to his own
negligence or ill motives. He was deemed to have
waived his own safety and thus has assumed the risk that
the might get injured because of his act. He should thus
not be allowed to pass on the blame to the defendants for
his negligent act pursuant to the principle of unjust
enrichment to the detriment of the defendants;

5.3.3 Indeed, the law provides that "A passenger must observe
the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to
himself”2 , which means that if the injury to the passenger
has been proximately caused by his own negligence, the
carrier cannot be held liable. This finds applicability in
this case because of the negligence of the plaintiff and the
fault cannot be attributed to Defendant Kaskasero, or to
his employer, Ben Minamalas Taxi Company;

5.3.4 The claim for actual damages is without basis both

fact and in law. The official receipts are undated, there
is a lack of substantial amount of details as to the
medications availed of, and is merely a certification of
what the complaint paid. The certification only stated
that there was medical examination conducted but did
2
Article 1761, New Civil Code

9|Page
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

not thoroughly describe the injuries sustained .The

attached demand letter were not actually received by
either of the defendants and such letter was unsigned by
the Plaintiff. All these are proofs that the documents
submitted by the plaintiff were maliciously obtained;

5.3.5 In the case of Maritime Factors Inc. v. Hindang, the

Supreme Court held that: Court held that:

“…the alleged translated medical report was not even

signed by Dr. Hameed which creates doubt as to its
authenticity. The unsigned translated medical report is
nothing but a self-serving document which ought to be
treated as a mere scrap of paper devoid of any evidentiary
value even in administrative proceedings.”

5.3.6 In the case of Philippine National Bank v. Court of

Appeals and Flores, the Supreme Court said that:

“A written and signed acknowledgment that money has

been paid or goods have been delivered. A receipt is
merely presumptive evidence and is not conclusive.

A written acknowledgment that money or a thing of value

has been received. Since a receipt is a mere
acknowledgment of payment, it may be subject to
explanation or contradiction. A receipt may be used as
evidence against one just as any other declaration or
admission. A simple receipt not under seal is presumptive
evidence only and may be rebutted or explained by other
evidence of mistake in giving it, or of non-payment or of
the circumstances under which it was given.”

5.3.7 The plaintiff has also no bases for claiming 150,000 for
allegedly loss of earning capacity ,as stated above he was
the proximate cause of his alleged injury. Even assuming
for the sake argument that he suffered injury, he did not
proved it that it is serious. Again, the taxi driven by
Manoy moved so slowly on the time and place stated in
the complaint, and he observed extraordinary diligence;

5.3.8 Plaintiff is also not entitled for moral damaged because it

has no bases both fact and in Law. In order that moral
damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and
proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the
like. When the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he

10 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded

feelings and moral shock, he should prove that he
purportedly suffered to sustain his claim for moral
damages. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be
substantiated by clear and convincing proof;

5.3.9 With respect to the plaintiff claims for attorneys fees and
litigation expenses, Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows
attorney’s fess to be awarded by a court when its
claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to
incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an
unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is
sought. While judicial discretion is here extant, an award
thereof demands, nevertheless, a factual, legal or
equitable justification. The matter cannot and should not
be left to speculation and conjecture;

5.3.10 Article 19 of the New Civil Code is explicit when it

stated that “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
Thus, to allow the plaintiffs to recover damages from the
defendants, who were merely in the exercise of their
rights, despite the clear negligence of the deceased
would only injustice;

5.3.11 Therefore, even though the plaintiff suffered injury , it

still does not warrant a claim for damages when clearly
the alleged injured himself caused such damages against
himself. Besides it is the defendant who shall be entitled
for damages because the compliant is baseless.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto

this Honorable Court:

a. To dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the

person of the defendant and for lack of cause of action;

b. To dismiss the complaint for utter lack of merit and for

being baseless;

c. To order the plaintiff to pay the defendant Php 50,000 for

the attorney’s fee, Php 200,000 for moral damages and Php
100,000 for exemplary damages; and

11 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

d. To grant other relief just and equitable under the

circumstances.

Cotabato City, Philippines. April 20, 2020.

Assisted by:

ATTY. ALICE MONTERO

Counsel for the Defendants
KILLER Bldg., Magallanes St., 9600 Cotabato City
Roll of Attorney No. 14141
MCLE Compliance No. V-0012345 valid until 4/20/2022
PTR No. 246810/01.04.20/Cotabato City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 022222

12 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

VERIFICATION

I, Ben Minamalas Taxi Company, a domestic corporation duly

organized under the laws of the Philippines engaged in the business of
land transportation of passengers and a holder of certificate of public
convenience with principal place of business at Notre Dame Avenue,
Cotabato City.

1) That I am one of the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2) That I caused the preparation of this Memorandum;

3) I have read and understood the contents thereof and the

allegations stated therein are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20 th day

of April 2020 at Cotabato City, Philippines.

BEN MINAMALAS
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of April 2020

at Cotabato City with affiant exhibiting to me his Professional Driver’s
License Number M0-02-1110045 issued on March 17, 2019 at Cotabato
City.

ATTY. JAMES ARTHUR YU

Notary Public
Commission Expires December 31, 2020
Roll of Attorney No. 88888
PTR No. 233450/01.05.20/Cotabato City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 224466
Doc. No. 5
Page No. 1
Book No. I
Series of 2020

13 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

VERIFICATION

I, Manoy Kaskasero, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident

of Bagua, Cotabato City, Philippines.

1) That I am one of the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2) That I caused the preparation of this Memorandum;

3) I have read and understood the contents thereof and the

allegations stated therein are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20 th day

of April 2020 at Cotabato City, Philippines.

MANOY KASKASERO
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 th day of April

2020at Cotabato City with affiant exhibiting to me his Professional
Driver’s License Number M0-01-23456 issued on February 14, 2019 at
Cotabato City.

ATTY. JAMES ARTHUR YU

Notary Public
Commission Expires December 31, 2020
Roll of Attorney No. 88888
PTR No. 233450/01.05.20/Cotabato City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 224466

Doc. No. 6
Page No. 1
Book No. I
Series of 2020

14 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
Rico Sinagasa v. Ben Minamalas Taxi Company and Manoy Kaskasero
Civil Case No. 0003 for Damages

PROOF OF SERVICE AND EXPLANATION

Service of this pleading was done thru personal service.

ATTY. ALICE MONTERO

Counsel for the Defendants

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Maine Mendoza

Counsel for the Plaintiff
3rd floor, Mondragon Bldg.,
Macapagal St., Cotabato City

15 | P a g e