MARGARITA AFIALDA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BASILIO HISOLE and FRANCISCO HISOLE, defendants-appellees.

NATURE: An action for damages arising from injury caused by an animal. FACTS: 1. The deceaseds elder sister and heir depending support from him filed an action for da a!e" against spouses Hisole. 2. The complaint alleges that deceased, oreto Afialda, !as employed by the defendant spouses as careta"er of their carabaos at a fi#ed compensation. a. $hile tending the animals, oreto Afialda !as gored by one of them and later died as a conse%uence of his injuries. b. The mishap !as due neither to his o!n fault nor to force majeure. &. 'efore filing an ans!er, the defendants o#ed for t$e di" i""al of the complaint for lac" of a cause of action. a. The motion !as granted by the lo!er court. (. )SC: *laintiff filed an appeal and see"s to hold defendants liable under article 1+,- of the .ivil .ode, !hich reads/ a. The possessor of an animal, or the one !ho uses the same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if such animal should escape from him or stray a!ay. b. This liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise from force majeure or from the fault of the person !ho may have suffered it. ISSUE: $01 the o!ner of the animal is liable !hen damage is caused to its careta"er. HELD: 12

This opinion, ho!ever, appears to have been rendered in a case !here an animal caused injury to a stranger or third person. 6t is therefore no authority for a case li"e the present !here the person injured !as the careta"er of the animal. The distinction is important. 3or the statute names the possessor or user of the animal as the person liable for 7any damages it may cause,7 and this for the obvious reason that the possessor or user has the custody and control of the animal and is therefore the one in a position to prevent it from causing damage. 6n the present case, t$e ani al %a" in c("tod' and (nder t$e control of t$e careta)er, %$o %a" *aid for $i" %or) a" "(c$+ O&#io("l', it %a" t$e careta)er," &("ine"" to tr' to *re#ent t$e ani al fro ca("in! in-(r' or da a!e to an'one, incl(din! $i "elf+ And &ein! in-(red &' t$e ani al (nder t$o"e circ( "tance", %a" one of t$e ri")" of t$e occ(*ation %$ic$ $e $ad #ol(ntaril' a""( ed and for %$ic$ $e ("t ta)e t$e con"e.(ence". 6n a decision of the 5panish 5upreme .ourt, cited by 4anresa in his .ommentaries, the death of an employee !ho !as bitten by a feline !hich his master had as"ed him to ta"e to his establishment !as by said tribunal declared to be 7a veritable accident of labor7 !hich should come under the labor la!s rather than under article 1+,- of the .ivil .ode. The present action, ho!ever, is not brought under the $or"men8s .ompensation Act, there being no allegation that, among other things, defendant8s business, !hatever that might be, had a gross income of *2,,,,,. As already stated, defendant8s liability is made to rest on article 1+,- of the .ivil .ode. but action under that article is not tenable for the reasons already stated. 2n the other hand, if action is to be based on article 1+,2 of the .ivil .ode, it is essential that there be fault or negligence on the part of the defendants as o!ners of the animal that caused the damage. 'ut the complaint contains no allegation on those points. DIS/OSITION: A33694:; lo!er courts decision

RATIO: The lo!er court too" the vie! that under the above-%uoted provision of the .ivil .ode, t$e o%ner of an ani al i" an"%era&le onl' for da a!e" ca("ed to a "tran!er, and t$at for da a!e ca("ed to t$e careta)er of t$e ani al t$e o%ner %o(ld &e lia&le onl' if $e $ad &een ne!li!ent or at fa(lt under article 1+,2 of the same code. .laiming that the lo!er court !as in error, counsel for plaintiff contends that the article 1+,- does not distinguish bet!een damage caused to the careta"er and ma"es the o!ner liable !hether or not he has been negligent or at fault. 3or authority counsel cited an opinion !hich 4anresa %uotes from a decision of the 5panish 5upreme .ourt.