Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Ms. A,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. CEB - 123456
FOR: RECOVERY OF
DAMAGES
-versus-
x---------------------------------/
10.The act of Mr. B was nothing more than a mere human instinct
of self-preservation under an emergency. Under the
emergency rule, when a person suddenly finds himself in a
place of danger and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to
adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to
have been a better method, unless the emergency in which
he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.1
11. When the defendant swerved to the right, he took all the
necessary actions available to him at such precise moment to
prevent his life and the life of the person in the opposite
direction from the possibility of being harmed. As stated in the
similar case of Gan v. CA2:
12. Moreover, the swerving to the right is the best possible action
that the defendant could do, as swerving to the left would make
him face all the vehicles in the opposite lane and is even more
dangerous.
II. Ms. A was the one negligent for violating a traffic rule
14. During the incident, it was raining, thus the visibility on the
road was greatly affected. Moreover, as stated in Par. 4 of the
complaint, the color of the vehicle was maroon. As a general
knowledge, a maroon colored vehicle would not be clear
1
Gan v. CA ( G.R. No. L-44264) September 19, 1988
2
G.R. No. L-44264) September 19, 1988
during the night, especially when there is heavy rain which
makes it more difficult to see.
15. Also, as previously stated, the plaintiff did use any early
warning device or her warning lights to let other vehicles know
that she was parking temporarily on the side of the road.
16. In the present case, the plaintiff stopped and parked at the side
of the road due to an alleged wrong in her vehicle. However,
she did not use an early warning device or followed the rules
regarding the use of an early warning device. It is required that
an EWD must be installed at least four (4) meters to the
front and at the rear of the motor vehicle whenever the
motor vehicle is stationary for any reason, or it is compelled
to stop on an area where standing or parking is prohibited.3
17.The plaintiff having stopped for a reason did not use the
required early warning device, hence, a clear violation of the
traffic rule. Under the Civil Code, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. 4 Thus, the
plaintiff having violated a traffic rule, she is presumed to be
negligent at the time the incident occurred.
COUNTERCLAIM
3
Memorandum Circular NO.VPT-2012-1609, otherwise known as Revised
Rules on the Implementation of the Early warning device (EWD)
Requirement, Par 3.
4
Art. 2185 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
the amount of Php500,000.00 and exemplary damages of
Php500,000.00. The plaintiffs must be made to reimburse these
amounts to herein defendants.
PRAYER
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
COPY FURNISHED:
By Registered Mail
Registry Receipt No. 00-739264
Date: June 20, 2017
EXPLANATION