Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sample Legal Opinion
Sample Legal Opinion
The Supreme Court explained said provision in the case of Vestil v. Intermediate
Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74431, 179 SCRA 47), saying that:
According to Manresa, 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.
Now, Arthur may say that what happened was brought about by contributory negligence
on Marys part as the former implied in his letter, or he may claim that letting Mary roam the
vicinity unaccompanied is negligence on your part and constitutes the proximate cause of her
injuries, notwithstanding his own negligence in leaving the gate unlocked before napping. Both
scenarios are governed by Article 2179 of the Civil Code that provides:
When the plaintiffs 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 defendants lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
In the first scenario, the Supreme Courts ruling in Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court
of Appeals (G.R. No. 129792, 321 SCRA 375) that a child under nine years of age must be
conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law covers Mary,
hence throwing the notion of contributory negligence on her part out the window. As for the
second scenario, the ruling in Umali v. Bacani (G.R. No. L-40570, 69 SCRA 263) provides that
parental negligence in allowing a young child to go out of the house alone may at most qualify as
contributory negligence and as such would be covered by the second sentence of Article 2179.
Arthur, being the owner of the dog that attacked Mary, is liable for damages, with all
possible defenses taken into consideration. If Arthur didnt leave the gate unlocked before taking
a nap an act showing a lack of due care there would have been no way the dog could have
attacked Mary. Mary could test the gate all day long and she wouldnt be attacked by Arthurs
dog had the gate been closed. Of course, he may say that paying Marys medical bill should be
enough, but that does not cover the moral damages that Mary is entitled to under Article 2219 (2)
of the Civil Code, which specifically pertains to quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. As
mentioned earlier, the only reprieve due him would be a mitigation of his liability.
One thing: my opinion is based on the laws and the jurisprudence applicable to your
situation. If by any circumstance you take your plight to court, I am confident that the case will
be decided in your favor.
Very truly yours,
Emile Justin P. Cebrian