BB LAW OFFICE

Abadiez - Jimenez - Mala - Norbe - Ponla - Tariman - Zapanta

Mahayahay Street, Brgy. Bankal, Lapu-lapu City
Tel. No. (032)384-9661, 09173742305, email: jasonpaolotariman@gmail.com

April 13, 2020

Via LBC

Mr. Peter Banaag

16 Annapolis St.
Cubao, Quezon City

Re: Legal opinion on the liability of Mr. Arthur Sison, the owner if the dog

Dear Mr. Banaag:

As we discussed previously in our meetings, this is a legal opinion regarding the ordeal of your daughter
who was attacked by your neighbor’s dog which resulted in injuries to your daughter.

Based on the facts you presented with the help of your eyewitness, Fred Puzon, and the letter from Mr.
Arthur Sison, the facts are taken as follows:

“That, on September 12 at around 3pm in the afternoon, your six year old daughter, Mary went to the
house of Mr. Arthur Sison to buy ice candies. She was at the front of Mr. Sison’s gate and knocked on it
but no one answered, she tested the gate by pushing it, and when the gate yielded, the dog jumped out and
attacked her. Mr. Sison who was napping at that time woke up when he heard the commotion and
immediately came to Mary’s aid, brought her to a medical clinic nearby and paid the medical expenses.”

The controversy arises when you asked Mr. Sison to pay for damages suffered by your
daughter because of his dog who then attacked your daughter. However, he alleged in his letter that he
should not be liable for damages since there was a sign on his gate indicating the presence of the dog
and Mary had failed to see the said sign. Furthermore, alleged that the incident would have not
happened if your chill did not go outside.

Thus, the issue lies whether or not Mr. Sison is liable for damages.
 Mr. Sison is liable for damage based on quasi-delict as defined by Article 2176 of the New
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…”

It is clear that Mr. Sison was indeed negligent when he took a nap and left his gate unlocked,
knowingly that he had a dog in his premises. Furthermore, if he had locked the gate, the dog would
not have jumped out and attacked Mary.

Mr. Sison may have argued that he exercised due diligence by putting a sign as a caution of the
presence of the dog. However, despite this, he should have not left his gate unlocked even if there was
a sign in his gate since his customers kept on coming in and buying his ice candies. A reasonably
prudent man exercising due diligence should have foreseen that some of his customers, especially very
young one, may not have the ability to read and understand the signs.

Moreover, under Article 2183 of the NCC provides that:

“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.”

Furthermore, the obligation imposed by the said article is not based on negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based on
natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility,
pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such an animal may cause. Which Mr. Sison is
responsible for the damages which his animal had caused. His allegation that his dog had never
attacked someone before would not bar since an animal’s past action is not a prediction for its future
actions.

Mr. Sison may contend that he has no responsibility for damages since it was you who was
being negligent but letting your daughter go outside. He may have alleged this since Mary was the one
who came to his house, and was not attended by any adult, therefore there was negligence on your
part which was the proximate cause of Mary’s injuries. He may invoke Article 2179 of the NCC,
which provides:

“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.”

However, to rebut his contention, we may invoke a previously decided case by the supreme
court which is the case if Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals where the court ruled
that “a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment,
and is, on the account, either criminal or civil, be incapable of negligence”. This ruling will overcome
Mr. Sison allegation, thus enabling you as the father to recover damages.

Finally, you may recover not just actual damages but also moral damages as enumerated in
Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

I hope to have enlightened you on this matter and if there is anything you want me to clarify
related to this legal opinion, please do let me know.

Very truly yours,

Jason Paolo C. Tariman

Legal Counsel

JFK