THE CASE OF A CHILD

AND A NEIGHBOR’S DOG

 PARTIES OF THE CASE
PETITIONER: Peter Banag

RESPONDENT: Arthur Sison

 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

■ Peter Banag filed a civil action against Arthur Sison for the injuries suffered by her
daughter, Mary, due to the attack of the Arthur’s dog. Peter claims an amount of
P20,000.00 against Arthur for damages his daughter suffered.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
■ On September 12 at about 3 p.m. Mary went to Arthur’s house to buy ice candy.

■ Mary knocked on the gate but no one answered as Arthur was napping at that time.

■ Mary pushed the gate to test it, but it easily yielded and the dog jumped out.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

■ She held the gate open and called in saying that she wanted to buy ice candy.

■ The dog attacked her from behind, bit her leg and her arms, and caused her fall to
the ground.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
■ Fred Puzon (“Fred”), a neighbor, immediately ran to help Mary.

■ Awakened by the commotion, Arthur came out of his house, sent the dog back to his
yard, and brought Mary to a nearby clinic for treatment.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

■ Peter asked Arthur to pay P20,000.00 for damages his daughter suffered.

■ Arthur did not agree with Peter’s prayer.

■ He wrote a letter to Mr. Banag, explaining why he should not be held liable for his
dog’s attack.
 ISSUE

Whether or not Arthur Sison is civilly liable to Mary for damages.

 Art. 2183, New Civil Code

Art. 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 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.
 Vestil v. IAC and Uy (G.R. No. 74431,
November 6, 1989)
“In fact, Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal
should "escape or be lost" and so be removed from his control. And it does not matter
either that, as the petitioners also contend, the dog was tame and was merely provoked
by the child into biting her. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers
even tame ones as long as they cause injury.”
 Vestil v. IAC and Uy (G.R. No. 74431,
November 6, 1989)

“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.”
Republic Act No. 9482 (Anti-Rabies Act
of 2007)
Sec. 5 (c) and (f)
SEC. 5. Responsibilities of Pet Owner. - All Pet Owners shall be required to:
(c) Maintain control over their Dog and not allow it to roam the
streets or any Public Place without a leash.
xxx
(f) Assist the Dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical
expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the
victim’s injuries.
 Wild Beast Theory

“The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there
anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does
not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural
consequence of its escape”
 Contributory Negligence

“There is a conclusive presumption that a child below nine (9) years is

incapable of contributory negligence.”

(Jarco Marketing Corporation, Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope and Elisa Panelo vs Honorable
Court of Appeals, Conrado C. Aguilar and Criselda R. Aguilar, G.R. No. 129792, December 21,
1999)
 PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that a judgment be issued
against the defendant:
1. Making him civilly liable in the amount of P20,000.00 for the injuries suffered by
the plaintiff’s daughter.