21 September 2011

Mr. Peter Banag

16 Annapolis St.,
Cubao, Quezon City

Dear Mr. Banag,

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not

Arthur Sison is liable for damages for the injuries caused by his dog to your
daughter.

The Facts

Per interview with the witness, Mr. Fred Puzon, and the letter of Mr.
Arthur Sison you have shown me, the following are the pertinent facts:

On September 12, at about 3pm, Mary, your six-year-old daughter,

approached Arthur Sison’s gate to buy ice-candy. After she softly knocked
on the gate a couple of times and no one answered, she opened the gate and
Arthur’s dog jumped out. The dog attacked and bit Mary. Arthur then came
out of the house and immediately rushed Mary to a medical clinic. He also
paid for the medical bills.

Arthur has been selling ice-candies at his gate since March of the
previous year. The gate had an automatic locker but he sometimes left it
unlock from the inside. There is also a written warning on the gate about the
presence of the dog.

Mary sustained injuries from the attack. Arthur believed that he is not
liable to your daughter for damages. Thus, he refused to pay when you asked
him for ₱20,000.00 as damages for the injuries Mary suffered.

The Applicable Law

Article 2183 of the New Civil Code 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. 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.”

Moreover, under R.A. No. 9482 or the “Anti-Rabies Act of 2007”, the
pet owner has the following responsibilities, among others, when his pet dog
bites another:
1. Within twenty-four (24) hours, report immediately any Dog biting
incident to the Concerned Officials (barangay officials, health workers,
police officers or government veterinarians) for investigation or for any
appropriate action and place such Dog under observation by a
government or private veterinarian.

2. Assist the Dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical
expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s
injuries.

The Applicable Jurisprudence

In the case of Vestil et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No.
74431, November 6, 1989), the Supreme Court through Honorable former
Associate Justice Isagani A. Cruz stated that:

“According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of

the Civil Code is not based on the 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 animal may cause.”

Analysis and Conclusion

As can be gleaned from the legal provisions discussed above, Article

2183 of the New Civil Code is applicable to your case. Arthur’s dog
attacked and bit Mary which caused her injuries. Although Arthur already
paid for the medical bills, Mary is still entitled to recover fair and adequate
compensation for the damages she suffered. Such damages may include non-
economic damages such as the pain of the injury and the treatment, mental
anguish and trauma when confronted by the dog or when remembering the
attack, humiliation caused by scars and others.

The Article also stated that the owner or possessor of the dog is not
liable for damages in case the damage is from force majeure or from the
fault of the person who has suffered damage. Since Mary is at a tender age
of six, she is still not fully aware of the danger of her actions. She may not
understand the sign on the gate warning about the presence of the dog. Thus,
it is not her own fault that she suffered the injuries.

Moreover, Arthur has been selling ice-candies for a long time at his
gate where people came to buy. Yet, he sometimes left his gate unlock
knowing that he has a dog and knowing that people, especially children
come to buy ice candies. Arthur should have done all the necessary
precautions to protect the safety of people who came at his gate to buy ice-
candies. Nevertheless, as provided in the Vestil case, the obligation to pay
for damages is not about negligence or the suppose lack of vigilance from
the owner but based on natural equity and principle of social interest.

Thus, I am of the considered opinion that Mr. Arthur Sison can be

made liable for damages for Mary’s injuries caused by his dog. This is in
accordance with Article 2183 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

Recommendation

I recommend the filing of claims for damages against Mr. Sison in

accordance with Article 2183 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. In
this regard, you should be prepared to submit competent evidence
concerning the injuries sustained by your daughter, Mary, and proof of other
expenses incurred relative to the injury, aside from the medical expenses
already paid by Mr. Arthur Sison.

I appreciate the opportunity to advise you regarding this matter.

Please let me know if you wish to discuss any of these issues further. Thank
you.

Sincerely yours,

Sheila May E. Tonido