April 26, 2019

Mr. Peter Banaag

16 Annapolis St.,
Cubao, Quezon City

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

Dear Mr. Banaag:

This is in connection with your request to me seeking for an opinion

regarding the ordeal of your daughter who was attacked by your neighbor’s
dog thereby inflicting injuries on her.

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

“That on September 12, 2010 at around 3 in the afternoon, your six year old
daughter, Mary, went to Arthur Sison’s house to buy ice candies. She was
knocking on the gate but since nobody answered, she tested the gate by
pushing it, and when it yielded, the dog jumped out and attacked her. When
Mr. Sison who was napping at that time heard the commotion, he immediately
came to Mary’s aid, brought her to a clinic and paid for her medical expenses.”

The controversy arose when you asked Mr. Sison to pay for the damages
suffered because his dog attacked your daughter. However, Mr. Sison made
it clear in his letter that he is not liable for damages since there was a sign
on his gate indicating the presence of the dog and Mary had failed to heed
the said sign. Further, he insinuated that the attack was your fault since you
let your child roamed outside without an escort.

Thus, the meat of the issue lies on whether or not Mr. Sison is liable
for damages.

It is submitted that, Mr. Sison is liable for damages based on quasi-

delict as defined by Article 2176 of the New Civil Code (NCC):

“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”

It is apparent that Mr. Sison was negligent when he took a nap and left
his gate unlocked, knowing fully well that there was a dog in his premises.
Had he locked the gate, the dog would not have been able to jump out and
attacked Mary.

Mr. Sison may argue that he exercised due diligence by the fact that
there was a sign on the gate as a caution of the presence of the dog. However,
Legal Opinion No.
2
PAGE
2
at
Legal Writing

despite the warning, Mr. Sison should not have left his gate unlocked as the
sign may not deter his customers from coming in and buying ice candies. A
reasonably prudent man exercising due diligence should have the foresight to
expect that some customers, especially very young ones, may not have the
ability to read the sign.

Moreover, by virtue of Article Art 2183 of the NCC;

“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 in case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.”

The aforementioned article clearly states that as a possessor, Mr. Sison

is responsible for the damage the animal had caused. The fact that the dog
has never bitten anyone is of no moment since an animal’s past actions is not
a prediction of its future actions. Well entrenched is the ruling that he who
possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the
damage which such animal may cause.

However, Mr. Sison may contend that he has no responsibility for

damages since he imputes fault on Mary and by virtue of Article 2179 (NCC)
which states:

“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.”

He may alleged that since Mary was the one who came to his house,
unaccompanied by any adult, there was negligence on your part which was
the proximate cause of Mary’s injuries. To address this contention, we look
into the case of Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals where the
Court ruled “that a child under nine years of age must be conclusively
presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law”. This
ruling completely absolves Mary of any fault attributable to her, thus,
enabling her to recover damages.

Finally, the damages referred to in this case are not only 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 to clarify related to this legal opnion, please let me know.

Respectfully yours,

Mark Avner P. Acosta