MARGARITA AFIALDA, Plaintiff-Appellant

VS

BASILIO HISOLE and FRANCISCO HISOLE, Defendants-Appellees

G.R. No. L-2075 [November 29, 1949]

Facts of the Case:

Deceased Loreto Afialda was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of their
carabaos at a fixed compensation. On March 21, 1947, while he was tending the animals, he was
gored by one of them and consequently died of his injuries. Thus, herein appellant, Loreto’s elder
sister who depended on him for support, filed the action for damages. The complaint was
dismissed by the trial court upon granting a motion to dismiss filed by spouses Hisole. Subsequently,
the plaintiff had taken the present appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not defendants may be held liable for damages when damage is caused to
the animal’s caretaker.

Ruling of the Court:

Under Article 1905 of the old Civil Code, the owner of an animal is answerable only for
damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage caused to the caretaker of the animal the
owner would be liable only if he had been negligent or at fault under Article 1902 of the same
code. In the case at hand, the animal was in custody and under the control of the caretaker, who
was paid for his work as such. Thus, it was his business to try to prevent the animal from causing
injury or damage to anyone, including himself. Being injured by the animal under those
circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for
which he must take the consequences. Deceased does not fall within the ambit of “stranger”,
which is significant for the claim for damages under the said article.

Moreover, under the said circumstances, the action should not come under Article 1905 of the
Civil Code but under the labor laws, i.e. Workmen’s Compensation Act. The complaint contained
no allegation as to constitute liability under the Civil Code nor the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Hence, it alleges no cause of action.

The order appealed from was affirmed.