Legal Writing – Writing Exercise

Christopher Dale D. Weigel

JD-1 – M11
Carajay, Gun-ob, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
christopherdaleweigel@gmail.com

May 11, 2020

Mr. Peter Banag,

24 Annapolis Street,

Cubao, Quezon City.

Dear Mr. Peter Banag,

Good Day! These are the available options you have with regard to the
appropriate course of action to be taken.

Based on the interview with Fred Puzon, the following facts are established:

A dog owned by your neighbor, Mr. Arthur Sison, attacked your child.
After being attacked Arthur picked her up, called a tricycle, and brought her
to a nearby clinic for treatment. You asked for damages worth P20.000.00,
but instead received a letter saying that Arthur Sison was not liable for
damages as he was not at fault for the incident.

Wherefore, the issue here is evident:

1. That Mr. Arthur Sison is the one truly liable for damages.

The answers on the issue are as follows:

1. According to Section 5 (c) of the Anti-Rabies act of 2007, all pet

owners shall be required to maintain control over their Dog and not allow it
to roam the streets or any Public Place without a leash. Furthermore, Article
2183 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states 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. Clearly, Mr. Arthur
Sison is liable for the damage his dog caused to you and your daughter.

Therefore, it is my recommendation that you apply for relief in court in

case Mr. Arthur Sison continues to neglect his responsibility for damages.
Please bear in mind however, that these are only my recommendations. You
can still reach me in case you have further clarifications.

Christopher Dale D. Weigel

JD 1 – M11