Afialda v Hisole

Facts: 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: 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.