MOSCOSO, MONICA Q.

LEGAL WRITING SAT 4:30-6:30

EH 301 ATTY. JOAN DYMPHNA AMIT

THE CASE OF THE CHILD AND THE NEIGHBOR’S DOG

Rule of Law:

Article 2203 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines:

The party suffering from loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize
the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.

Article 2179 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines:

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.

Analysis:

In the afternoon of September 12, Arthur was napping in the house when Mary, Peter’s daughter,
went to Arthur’s house at 12 Annapolis St., Cubao, Quezon City to buy ice candies where Arthur had been
selling for some time. Mary kept on knocking Arthur’s gate until the dog suddenly approached Mary and
bit her leg. Upon hearing the commotion outside Arthur’s house, he immediately rushed outside as he
realized that his dog was attacking the child. He called a tricycle and brought Mary to the clinic nearby for
treatment of her wounds and for an injection. Arthur also paid the medical bill.

In this situation, Arthur was clearly acting responsibly from the incident because he did not leave
the child and he initiated the delivery of the child to the clinic and its medical treatment, he also paid for
the medical bill which is his responsibility since it was his dog who attacked the child.

Mary’s act of going outside the house unaccompanied evidently shows that Peter, the party who
suffered from loss or injury, did not exercise the ordinary diligence which is the diligence of a good father
of a family pursuant to Article 2203 of the Civil Code. Peter did not mind in performing ordinary diligence
towards his family or to his which led to a greater damage caused by them. Thus, Peter exercised negligence.

Peter is seeking advice to the lawyers if it is possible for him to file an action against Arthur and
seek recovery for damages amounting to P20,000. In applying Article 2179 of the Civil Code, Peter’s act
of leaving Mary unaccompanied shows negligence which led to the proximate cause of the injury.
Therefore, Peter cannot ask for damages.

Counter Analysis (Arthur’s Point of View):

In this case, Arthur is not liable for damages, and the action of Peter against Arthur would not
possibly prosper because Peter must, in the first place, exercise ordinary diligence which is diligence of a
good father of a family in order to minimize the damages suffered or lost.
 It was stated in the letter that Arthur’s gate had an automatic close, and he also carried a written
warning about the presence of the dog which signifies that Arthur is showing carefulness towards the
outsiders or the buyers of the ice candy. The dog, Francer, had not also attacked anyone until the incident
on September 12 happened. Upon seeing the commotion outside, he immediately ran out and helped the
child by calling a tricycle to bring them to the clinic, and even paying for the medical bills. These acts of
Arthur showed nothing but responsibility and diligence.

Conclusion:

To conclude, Arthur is not liable for damages because he exercised ordinary diligence by showing
a warning sign posted in the gate, and he answered for the medical treatment and medical bills of Mary who
was attacked by Arthur’s dog. In addition, the proximate cause in this case is the negligence of Peter by
leaving Mary unattended. If Peter should have acted the diligence of a good father of family, the damages
should have been minimized cause by them. There not enough evidence to prove that Arthur is liable for
damages, nor any proof to satisfy the actions filed in this case. This action holds no water. Therefore, Peter
cannot recover damages pursuant to Article 2179 of the Civil Code because his negligence was not also
contributory. Arthur’s responsibility is also evident which made us believe that he is not liable for any
damages.