Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Muntinlupa City, Branch 206

PETER BANAG
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 24713

- versus- FOR: DAMAGES

ARTHUR SISON
Defendant

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

M EM ORANDUM
For the Defendant

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and
presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Peter Banag filed this action for damages against defendant
Arthur Sison, claiming that he is entitled for the amount of P20,000 due to the
injuries suffered by his daughter. In its answer, Arthur Sison refused and
asserted that he has no liability with consideration to his payment of medical
bills and the negligence of the guardians or parents towards the absence of the
child’s escort.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The defendant owned an ice candy business located in his house at 12

Annapolis street, Cubao, Quezon City. Around 3:00 PM of September 12, he
was napping at his house and was only awakened upon the sound of the
commotion coming from the outside. Acting upon the clamor, he immediately
got up and saw Fred Puzon who were their neighbor trying to stop his dog
named Prancer from attacking Mary who was already laying on the ground
outside of his gate. He immediately sent Prancer inside and called a tricycle to
bring Mary to the nearby hospital for necessary medical services and paid all
the medical bills connected with the incident.

Plaintiff, the father of Mary, demanded the defendant to pay P20,000.00

for the injuries suffered by his daughter. In response thereof, the defendant
through a letter addressed to the plaintiff refused and argued that plaintiff has no
cause of action against him. Prancer has also never attacked anyone prior to this
incident and the child came outside without the presence of an escort.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the defendant is liable for damages.

2. Whether or not the defendant exercised proper diligence in making its

premises safe for its customers.
3. Whether or not Mary’s accident was through her own contributory
negligence.

ARG UM E NTS
I.
DEFENDANT ARTHUR SISON FAILED TO EXERCISE PROPER
DILIGENCE IN MAKING ITS PREMISES SAFE FOR ITS CUSTOMERS.
The contention of Arthur Sison in a letter addressed to Peter Banag that
“I always sold my ice-candies at the gate when people came to buy. The gate
had automatic close. But at times, I left it unlocked from the inside because my
children often went in and out” surmises negligence. In the case of Philippine
National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, negligence has been
defined as “the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another
person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.” There was a failure
on the part of the defendant to observe that degree of care, precaution, and
vigilance as there was no leash on the dog nor a presence of other concerned
person to attend to the selling of ice candies and prevent the dog’s natural
impulse to attack a stranger. It is not enough that there was a written warning of
dogs. Mary is still a five-year old child who may not have the ability to read
such signages.
Therefore, Arthur Sison failed to exercise proper diligence in making its
premises safe for its customers.
II.
DEFENDANT ARTHUR SISON IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES SUFFERED
BY MARY.
Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, the owner of the animal is
responsible for the damage which it may cause.
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be
lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from
force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
CIVIL CODE, Art. 2183.
Arthur is the owner of the dog who also claimed that he sometimes
leaves the gate unlocked which act shows a manifestation of a lack of due care.
Had he done otherwise and exercised all the proper precaution to prevent the
dog from attacking someone, Mary would have not bitten. It is insufficient and
absurd to consider the payment of Mary’s medical bill to cover the same as laws
classify other damages aside from actual ones. Under the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Mary is entitled to moral damages.
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following analogous cases:
(1) A Criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
CIVIL CODE, Art. 2219.
Under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, 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 pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
Here Arthur, being the owner of the dog that attacked Mary, exercised
negligence and thus, liable for ACTUAL and MORAL DAMAGES.

III.
MARY’S ACCIDENT WAS THROUGH HER OWN CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE.
 Pursuant to Art. 2179 of the Civil Code, “when the plaintiff’s own
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was only 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.”
There was an apparent negligence on the part of Peter Banag by allowing
his daughter to buy ice candy unaccompanied by an adult. In the case of Umali
v. Bacani, it provides that: “parental negligence in allowing a young child to go
out of the house alone may at most qualify as contributory negligence and as
such would be covered by the second sentence of Article 2179.” Such being the
case, it qualifies to a contributory negligence. Thus, the only reprieve due him
would be a mitigation of his liability and damages to the plaintiff under
Art.2179.

PRAY E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant respectfully prays to

the honorable court that judgment be rendered in his favor as follows:

1. Judgment be rendered upholding the contributory negligence on

the part of the plaintiff.

2. Dismissing the complaint for the lack of merit and allowing him
not to pay the amount of P20,000.00 for damages

Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Muntinlupa City, 5th day of September, 2019.