Hidalgo, Alyannah M.

ELE2-LM1-2

Arguments

I.
MR. SISON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY HIS DOG
The principal issue raised is whether or not Arthur Sison is responsible for damages for
the injuries suffered by Mary. The law provides specifically in Article 2176 of the New Civil
Code, “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being at fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between parties is called quasi-delict and is governed by provisions
of this Chapter”. In the case at bar, it is proved that the defendant Arthur Sison is at fault for
being a negligent owner of the dog. He admitted in his letter that he left the gate unlocked and
for engaging in a business of selling ice candies, he should have leashed his dog when he took a
nap so his customers would be safe.
The defendant argues that there was neglect on the part of Mr. Banag by letting Mary
roam around without the supervision of a parent or guardian, which is the proximate cause of
the accident. This is supported by Article 46 Paragraph 3 of PD No. 603, otherwise known as
The Child and Youth Welfare Code, which explicitly provides for the general duties of parents
toward their children which includes supervision of activities, including recreation. However, as
defined by Cambridge Dictionary, recreational activities are activities undertaken for exercise
and relaxation engaging physical, mental, and social health. Thus, buying ice-candies is not a
recreational activity since it is not an exercise or form of relaxation involving any physical,
mental, and social health. Arthur, being also a father would have thought of how kids in the
neighborhood can freely roam around the area. Buying simple stuff from a nearby small store
like Arthur’s is just but normal.
Following Article 2183 of the New Civil Code, “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”, in this case, Mary did
not provoke nor interact with the dog that would lead the dog to attack or assault Mary. The
attack was the own violation of the dog of Mr. Sison.

II.

ARTHUR SISON DID NOT EXERCISE PROPER DILIGENCE IN MAKING HIS PREMISES SAFE FOR
HIS CUSTOMERS.
 Sison in his letter addressed to Peter Banag, admitted that he has been selling ice-candies
at the gate of his house but further claims that his gate has an automatic closer that at times he
would leave the gate unlocked because his children often come in and out. Considering Arthur
was selling ice-candies, it is well-established that the majority of his market are kids in the
neighborhood. However, at the time the accident happened, Arthur lacked prudence when for
his convenience, left his gate unlocked so his nap will not be distracted.
Sison argues that by putting in a warning sign that indicates a dog is within the premises
of his house, that he has given proper notice that a dog is present, and due diligence is
appropriate when entering his house. In this case, the attack of Mr. Sison’s dog happened right
outside his gate when his daughter left the door open, which led the dog to attack Mary.
However, as ruled in Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, a child under nine years
of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Mary Banag is incapable of contributory negligence considering that she was just a six-year-old
child. 
           As discussed in Ryland v. Fletcher, in the Doctrine of Wild Beast Theory, a person who for
his purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it
escapes must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the
damages which is the natural consequence of its escape. It is therefore unnecessary for the
plaintiff to prove negligence, and it is no defense for a defendant to prove that he has taken all
possible precautions to prevent the damage. Even if Mary was accompanied by an adult, the
dog would still be able to get out and attack another person because the dog owned by Arthur
Sison was not on a leash or in a proper cage.

III.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MR. SISON FOR INJURIES INCURRED BY MARY DOES NOT CEASE BY
ONLY LENDING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE INITIAL TREATMENT OF INJURIES
According to Mr. Sison, he did not neglect nor ignore the injuries sustained by Mary and
already gave paid the medical expenses incurred by the initial treatment of wounds of Mary in
the clinic she was brought to and thus ends his responsibility by such reasons, but under RA
8482 section 5(f) which states that “Assist the Dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the
medical expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s injuries.”, that
even though Mr. Sison, immediately assisted Mary, he is required by law to shoulder other
incidental expenses relative to the victim’s injuries, hence, his responsibilities continue
concerning additional expenses regarding Mary’s injuries.
Plaintiff Peter Banag claims damages in the amount of P20,000.00 against defendant
Arthur Sison due to the injuries and trauma Mary Banag suffered. Under Article 2219 paragraph
2 of the New Civil Code Moral damages may be recovered in the following or analogous cases:
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.” In this case, the defendant being a negligent owner
of a dog is liable to pay the said PHP 20,000 damages to Peter Banag.
Concluding Statement
Arthur Sison is responsible for damages for the injuries suffered by Mary Banag. Sison,
as the pet owner, immediately acted responsibly by bringing the child to a medical clinic for
treatment of her wounds and for an injection, and paid the bills. However, this action does not
exempt him from paying additional damages for the injuries suffered by the child. Treatment of
wounds and injection do not compensate the physical, emotional, and psychological trauma
that the victim had experienced caused by the dog’s attack.

Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Mr. Peter Banag respectfully prays that the case should prosper,
ordering defendant Arthur Sison to pay the plaintiff P20,000.00 for civil damages.