PAGURAYAN, Gabriela Activity on Civil Procedure May 13, 2022

PARAJENO, Lianne PLM 2JD4

PELO, Jerico
REY, Stephanie
ROSALES, Winona Gian
Kristen
SARMIENTO, Ranijudd King
TOGUAY, Paul Jeffrey

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 123, Quezon City
(rtc2qzn123.@judiciary.gov.ph)

Pedro R. Reyes, for himself and

his minor child Mary R. Reyes,
Complainant,

-versus- Civil Case No. R-QZN-11-01111-CV

For: Damages

Ramon S. Santos Defendant.

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

DECISION

Before this court is a complaint for damages filed by Complainant, Pedro R. Reyes and his
minor child Mary R. Reyes, seeking to recover from the Defendant Ramon S. Santos, the total
sum of P168,000 for the psychiatric treatment, P300,000.00 for expenses incurred for food and
recreation of Mary during her treatment for one year, and P200,000.00 moral damages because
of the times that they got stressed. All these damages were alleged to have been caused by
the defendant’s dog.

The occurrence which gave rise to the institution of this action took place on the afternoon of
September 12, 2020, at Reyes Street, Diliman, Quezon City. Herein, complainant Mary R.
Reyes, a minor, represented by her father Pedro R. Reyes was bitten by the defendant’s dog,
Prancer. In his Judicial Affidavit, Pedro states that her daughter asked for money to buy ice
candy from the defendant’s house. When Mary got to the defendant’s house to buy ice-candies,
she was attacked by Prancer. This attack was witnessed by their neighbor, Mario Cruz, as
evidenced by his Judicial Affidavit.

In his defense, Ramon argued that the attack was caused by Mary’s provocation of the dog as
shown on the CCTV camera footage. However, there is no offer of proof of the CCTV that
indeed Mary taunted the dog and threw a big stone at it. Furthermore, Ramon paid all the
medical bills amounting to P50,266.00 as shown on the original receipts attached as Exhibits 1
and 2. He also claimed that he offered to refer Mary to Dr. Norietta Balderrama, a child
psychiatrist, should the child need to be seen by a mental health professional, but Pedro flatly
denied his offer and insisted on the payment of damages

As a consequence of the incident, an apparent change in Mary’s behavior is witnessed and

Pedro had her attend psychological treatment which incurred costs in the total amount of
P168,000.00. Receipts and proof of demand from Ramon are duly presented as Exhibit C
attached herewith.

Under the New Civil Code Article 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.

In the case of Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74431, 06 November 1989), the
liability here is not based on negligence or lack of vigilance of the possessor of the animal.
Rather, 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.or be lost.

Actual Damages

Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for,
loss or injury sustained. They simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong.

As provided in Art. 2199 of the Civil Code, Except as provided by law or by stipulation,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by
him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory
damages.

In this case, Pedro sought for Actual damages in the amount of P168,000.00 for Mary’s Mental
Health assessment and therapy sessions as provided in Exhibit C. As stated in the facts, due to
the incident, Mary suffered from mental anguish. This was further discussed in the
Psychological Assessment Report submitted by Pedro as Exhibit B. Dr. Lapuz, in her
assessment with Mary, found that Mary shows recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive distressing
memories of the guard dog attacking her. Given the mental anguish suffered by Mary, brought
by the biting incident, We find Defendant liable of the P168,000.00 relief sought by Pedro for the
Mental Health Assessment and Therapy sessions.

The actual damages to be awarded by the trial court should be adequately substantiated by
official receipts. As mentioned in Art. 2199, “adequate compensation only for such pecuniary
loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.” Emphasis applied. Apart from the Actual
damages sought by Pedro for Mary’s mental health assessment, Pedro seeks for the award of
damages in the amount of P300,000.00 for expenses incurred for food and recreation of Mary
during her treatment for one (1) year. Pedro failed to offer receipts or other means to prove
such relief sought. Further, this incurred expenses cannot be appreciated by this Court as this
is outside of the bounds of pecuniary loss discussed in Art. 2199 of the Civil Code.

Moral Damages

Based on Art. 2219 of the Civil Code, It is submitted that, Defendant is liable for damages based
on quasi-delict as defined by Article 2176 of the New Civil Code (NCC):

Art. 2176 of the Civil Code provides that 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 quasi-delict xxx

Further, Art. 2217 of the Civil Code provides that Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury.

In line with the above-cited provisions, We find that Defendant is liable for the award of Moral
damages in the amount of P200,000.00.

Exemplary Damages

Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by
way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages. Article 2231 of the same Code further states that in quasi-delicts,
exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

Based on the above cited provision, We find that the claim for exemplary damages for P200,000
is of no merit.

In lieu of the above discussion, attention must be drawn on the above facts, and relating them in
this cited provision of the law and jurisprudence it cannot be denied that Mr. Ramon should be
held liable. The defense cited by him in his letter is untenable, he states that he left the gate
open because his children often go in and out the gate, this defense would not help him to
escape the negligence on his part. He should have thought of other outcomes and
consequences leaving the gate unlocked. Equally telling is he should have expected customers
could possibly enter their premises to buy his ice candies and given the fact that they own a dog
he should have been more watchful. It goes without saying that Mr. Ramon was negligent in the
lack of precaution to maintain his premises safe for his customers.

Emphasis must be placed that where it is not on the apparent negligence of Mr. Ramon, when
he took a nap and left his gate unlocked, knowing fully well that there was a dog in his premises
can be considered as the proximate cause of the above incident. Needless to say that had he
locked the gate, the dog could not have been able to jump out and attack Mary.

The word “damage” in these articles comprehends all that are embraced in its meaning. It
includes any damages that a human being may suffer in any and all the manifestations of his
life: physical or material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual, financial, economic, social,
political, religious. A
 r. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages
compensaiftWHEREFORE, we grant the actual damages for Php 168,000, and the moral
damages for Php 200,000. However, we deny the award of exemplary damages for Php
200,000 and the amount of Php 300,000 allegedly used for food and recreation of the minor
plaintiff during the course of her treatment for failure to provide receipts and proof of the same.

SO ORDERED

Quezon City, 13 May 2022

Pobin Radilla

Presiding Judge