Joanie Charmaine B.

Hernandez

Facts On October 25, 2010, Trix, dog of the plaintiff died when a truck parked in a sloping part of the street moved backwards and ran over it. The said truck was owned by a carpenter of the respondent. The plaintiff demanded the respondent for the replacement of the dog but the same was rejected. Respondent stated that the incident was the fault of the plaintiff because the dog should not be out roaming the streets on its own. Further, she said that it was a pesky dog and complained about it many times including one when the dog chased her little girl. The dog dug holes in her lawn and frequently deposits its wastes on their driveway and also pee in front of their house leaving a foul smell. She also said that there was a board resolution passed banning wandering dogs in the subdivision and that the plaintiff was warned about her dog. Finally, she said that her construction foreman assured her that the truck was properly parked and that he followed subdivision rules. Moreover, the carpenter, on his statement, said that he put two large rocks against the back wheels but someone removed them.

Issues 1. Whether or not Luz Diaz is guilty of nuisance. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (a) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (b) annoys or offends the senses; or (c) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (d) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (e) hinders or impairs the use of property. In this case, firstly, the dog of the plaintiff dug holes in the lawn of the respondent and complained about it many times, secondly, it frequently deposits its wastes on their driveway and also pee in front of their house leaving a foul smell which annoys or offends the senses and may injure or endanger the health of people and finally, the dog chased the little girl of the respondent down the road which endangers the safety not only her little girl but of others considering that the dog was roaming on the streets on its own. For the above reasons, the plaintiff is guilty of nuisance.

there being fault or negligence. The plaintiff violated the board resolution No.2. the dog would not have been dead if was not for the plaintiff’s own negligence. the negligence of the driver of the truck causes the death of the pet of the plaintiff thereby causing damage to the latter. However. he cannot recover damages. as the owner of the pet. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. is obliged to pay for the damage done as stated in Article 2176 of the Civil Code. It was also in accordance with the maxim. Whether or not Luz Diaz is entitled for the award of damages. 3 that was passed banning wandering dogs in the subdivision despite the warning given by the home association. when the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. The latter. and “no man should be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It was the immediate and proximate cause of the death of her dog.” The rule is also expressed in the maxims: “no man can be allowed to found a claim upon his own wrongdoing or inequity”. (Article 2179 of the Civil Code) In this case. should not let his pet to roam the streets on its own. the plaintiff is not entitled for the award of damages because the immediate and proximate cause of her injury was her own negligence. Hence. However. “The one who comes to court must come with clean hands. .

the plaintiff. The said dog dug holes in her lawn and frequently deposits its wastes on their driveway and also pee in front of their house leaving a foul smell. said that he put two large rocks against the back wheels but someone must have removed them.Eleine Jean E. 2010. Melecio STATEMENT OF THE CASE Luz Diaz filed a civil action for damages against Emma Crisostomo for the death of her dog. Lastly. the defendant stated that it was a pesky dog and complained about it many times. The truck was owned by Gregorio Timbol. she stated that her construction foreman assured her that the truck was properly parked and that he followed subdivision rules. there was that one time that the said dog chased her little girl down the road. Moreover. demanded a replacement of the dog but the defendant refused her demand and insisted that it was the plaintiff’s fault because the dog should not be out roaming the streets on its own. in front of the defendant Emma Crisostomo’s house moved backwards and ran over the said dog. Also. the plaintiff’s dog Trix died when a truck parked in the sloping part of the street. The carpenter. Luz Diaz. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS In the afternoon of October 25. Furthermore. She further stated that there was a board resolution passed banning wandering dogs in the subdivision and that the plaintiff was warned about her dog. on his statement. the defendant’s carpenter. .

Therefore. However. Lastly. the negligence of the truck driver caused the death of the plaintiff’s dog which causes damage to the plaintiff. Whether or not Luz Diaz has a ground for claiming damages from Emma Crisostomo. according to Article 2179. Therefore. she should not let her dog roam the streets without company. or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others. is obliged to pay for the damage done. considering that the said dog was roaming on the streets on its own. A nuisance is any act. the plaintiff’s dog dug holes in the lawn of the respondent and the respondent complained about it many times. the plaintiff cannot claim damages from the defendant for the reason that the immediate and proximate cause of her injury was her own negligence. In this case. 3 that bans wandering dogs in the subdivision. defies or disregards decency or morality. However. Luz Diaz is guilty of nuisance. whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property. the dog would not have been dead if not for the plaintiff’s own negligence because as a dog owner. the plaintiff’s dog chased the defendant’s little girl down the road which endangers the safety not only to the little girl but also to others. establishment. or (2) annoys or offends the senses. . there being fault or negligence. condition of property.ISSUES 1. omission. In this case. when the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. or any body of water. she violated the board resolution No. Whether or not the plaintiff Luz Diaz is guilty of nuisance. it frequently deposits its wastes on their driveway and also pee in front of their house leaving a foul smell which annoys or offends the senses and may injure or endanger the health of people. According to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. he cannot recover damages. 2. or (3) shocks. Also. or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street. Also. business. Her negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the death of her dog.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful