Joan C.

Diel, Section -1D

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Mandaluyong City, Branch 165

PETER BANAG,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 160718

ARTHUR SISON, FOR: CIVIL CLAIM

Defendant.

x--------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:

The Case

Plaintiff Peter Banag filed this action for declaratory relief and damages
against defendant Arthur Sison, claimed that there was negligence in the part of
the defendant in securing the defendant’s dog, resulting to the injuries of the
Plaintiff’s daughter, Mary Banag. In the defendant’s answer, Arthur Sison has
already fulfilled his responsibility by helping Peter Banag’s daughter and is not
anymore held liable for other financial aid and other responsibilities from injuries
incurred in the incident.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

According to the Witness Fred Puzon that the incident happened at

September 12 in the afternoon and he saw the incident unfold. According to him,
Mary (Plaintiff’s Daughter) came along to the house of Mr. Sison (Defendant) to
buy ice candies. She was later attacked and was bitten in the arm and legs by
Arthur’s dog. As the attack was unfolding, Mr. Sison eventually came outside of
his house and ordered his dog to go back inside his yard and assisted Mary
immediately by riding a tricycle while carrying her and brought her to a nearby
clinic. Mr. Banag (Plaintiff) then demanded compensation of P20,000.00 for the
injuries and damages suffered by his daughter.

According to Mr. Sison, his house had a sign that there was indeed a dog
inside his house; he was napping at his home when the incident happened and
was woken up by the noise outside his house. He eventually got outside to see
what the commotion was all about and saw that his dog was attacking Mary
outside of his yard. He immediately called the attention of the dog and ordered it
to go back inside the yard and immediately assisted Mary by bringing her to the
nearest clinic and paid the medical fees incurred by the treatments of her injuries.
Mr. Sison’s believes that he no longer needs to provide additional compensation
for reasons that he has already paid for the initial medical expenses incurred when
Mary was brought about to the clinic.

THE ISSUES

The court defined the issues in this case in its pre-trial order as follows:
1. Whether or not Mr. Sison is liable for the injuries suffered by Mary, the
daughter of Mr. Banag; and
2. Whether or not Mr. Banag is entitled for civil claims as a result from the
injuries received by his daughter from Mr. Sison’s dog.

ARGUMENTS

I.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MR. SISON FOR INJURIES INCURRED
TO MARY DOES NOT CEASE BY ONLY LENDING MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE TO THE INITIAL TREATMENT OF INJURIES
According to Mr. Sison, he did not neglect nor ignore the injuries sustained
by Mary and already gave paid the medical expenses incurred by the initial
treatment of wounds of Mary in the clinic she was brought to and thus ends his
responsibility by such reasons, but in accordance with RA 8482 section 5(f)
which states that “Assist the Dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the
medical expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s
injuries.”, that even though Mr Sison, immediately assisted Mary, he is required
by law to shoulder other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s injuries,
hence his responsibilities still continues on in relation to additional expenses
regarding Mary’s injuries.
II
MR. SISON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY HIS DOG
The defendant argued that there was neglect in the part of Mr. Banag by
letting Mary roam around without the supervision of a parent or guardian but in
accordance with the New Civil Code Art. 2183 “The possessor of an animal or
whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in
case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage” in this case, Mary did not provoke nor interact with
the dog that would lead the dog to attack or assault Mary. The attack was the own
violation of the dog of Mr. Sison.
III
MARY WENT TO MR. SISON’S HOUSE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF BUYING ICE CANDIES
Mary had no other intention in going to the house of Mr. Sison besides the
reason of buying ice candy. She never wanted to receive injuries from Mr. Sison’s
dog.
IV
MR. SISON PUT A WARNING SIGN AT THE GATE FOR VISITOR’S
NOTICE
Mr. Sison argues that by putting in warning sign that indicate a dog is
within the premises of his house, that he has given proper notice that a dog is
present, and due diligence is appropriate when entering his house. In this case,
the attack of Mr. Sison’s dog was not within the premises of his house but
happened right outside his gate when his daughter left the door open, which led
to the dog to attack Mary, who was stading outside the gate. Mary was no where
inside the house of Mr. Sison’s house.
V
MR. SISON’S DOG HAS NO PREVIOS HISTORY OF ATTACKING
PEOPLE
Mr. Sison argues that his dog has no prior history of attacking people who
visits his house, but the simple fact that he did attack a person in this case, does
not mean that it is deemed irrelevant just because of past history. All these lead
 to the fact that Mr. Sison should be held liable for damages incurred by the attack
of his dog to Mr. Banag’s daughter

Relief

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Mr. Peter Banag respectfully prays the Court to

render judgement:

1. The petition should prosper; and

2. Ordering defendant Arthur Sison to pay the plaintiff P20,000.00 for civil

damages and attorney’s fees of P2,000.00.

JOAN C. DIEL
Counsel for Peter Banag
10th Floor Lisaca Building
231 Buendia Avenue
Makati City
Atty. Roll No. 182912
Email: joandiel1@gmail.com

Copy Furnished:
Atty. Jairah D. Cervantes
88 Presidents Avenue
Paranaque City