legal opinion ko

8/10/2019 Legal Opinion Ko

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/legal-opinion-ko 1/3

February 22, 2014

Mr. Peter Banag

16 Anapolis St.

Cubao, Quezon City

Dear Mr. Banag:

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question whether or not you can charge

your neighbor, Mr. Arthur, payment for damages which your daughter suffered from the

attack of his dog.

The Facts

Per our discussion, the narration of your eyewitness and the letter from Mr.

Arthur Sison that you have shown me, the following are the pertinent facts:

On September 12, 2010 at around 3 in the afternoon, your daughter Mary went to

Arthur Sison’s residence alone to buy ice candies. She knocked at the gate and then a

dog jumped out of it and attacked her. Mr. Fred Puzon, one of your neighbors witnessed

the incident. He immediately helped the victim and kicked the dog away. Mr. Sison who

was napping at that time immediately came to Mary’s aid and brought her to the nearest

hospital. Mr. Sison paid for your daughter’s medical expenses as well.

The dispute started when you asked Mr. Sison for damages suffered by your

daughter due to the attack made by his dog. Unfortunately, what you received is a letter

from him claiming that he is not liable for damages. He contended that his gate contains

a sign indicating the presence of a dog. Furthermore, he immediately helped the victim

and brought her to the hospital and even paid the medical expenses. He also insists

that the miserable event that occured is your fault because you let your child leave your

house without escort.

The Applicable Law

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, isobliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existingcontractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict.”



It is evident that Mr. Sison was negligent when he took a nap and left his gateunlocked, knowing that there was a dog in his gate. If he only had locked the gate, thedog would not have been able to jump out and attacked your daughter.

Mr. Sison may had exercised due diligence by having a sign on his gate as acaution that there is a dog in his premises but despite this warning, he should not haveleft his gate unlocked. It is apparent that he have business of selling ice candies, andlittle children come to his house all the time to buy some. A reasonably prudent manexercising 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 thedamage 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 personwho has suffered damage.”

This article clearly states that as a possessor of an animal, Mr. Sison isresponsible for the damage which his dog may cause. The presence of the child is notthe cause of the incident but the negligence of the unlocking of the gate which lead tothe escape of the dog that caused the damage.

Mr. Sison can also be liable for violation of RA 9482, Section 11:

“Pet Owners who refuse to leash on their dogs when brought outside the house shall be

meted a fine of Five Hundred pesos (P 500.00) for each incident.”

It is apparent that Mr. Sison refused to put leash on his dog. Had he put the

leash, the dog would not have been able to jump out and attacked Mary. A gate is not a

cage for the dog nor a substitute for a leash. If there is a tendency for a dog to escape

the premises of the house, the owner should have the foresight and exercised due

diligence to put a leash on his dog.

The Applicable Jurisprudence

However, Mr. Sison may contend that he has no responsibility for damages sincehe 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 mayrecover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.”



He may argue that since Mary was the one who came to his house, not escortedby any adult, there was negligence on your part which was the proximate cause ofMary’s injuries. To address this contention, we look into the case of Jarco MarketingCorporation v. Court of Appeals where the Court ruled “that a child under nine yearsof 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.

Analysis and Conclusion

Thus, applying the rule of reason, Article 2183 of the Civil Code would apply toyour case because it requires a possessor of an animal, who is negligent, to be liablefor damages which his animal caused.

Finally, the damages referred to in this case are not only actual damages butalso moral damages as enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

I appreciate the opportunity to advise you regarding this matter. Please let me

know if you wish to discuss any of this issues further. Thank you.

Yours Faithfully,

EARLEEN H. DEL ROSARIO

JD 1-2

legal opinion ko

Documents