Republic of the Philippines

Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court

Quezon City
Branch 31
PETER BANAG,
Plaintiff for damages

- vs. - Civil Case No. 1611

ARTHUR SISON,
Defendant
x ------- --------------x

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In order that this Honorable Court may be enlightened and guided in

the judicious disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the
material, relevant and pertinent facts of the case to wit:

Plaintiff Peter Banag, the father of the child who was attacked by the
defendant’s dog, personally asked Arthur Sison for the damages amounting to
P20,000 for what his daughter has suffered when the defendant’s dog attacked
that child.

As response, defendant Arthur Sison, sent a letter saying his version of

facts and claims with regard to the demands of the plaintiff towards him –
regretting that he is not responsible for the sufferings of the child and neither
he is at fault.

A certain Fred Puzon, neighbour of both the plaintiff and the defendant,
witnessed the attacked of the dog to the plaintiff’s daughter, Mary.

The place of the instances happened at Annapolis Street, Cubao,

Quezion City.
 VERSION OF THE PLAINTIFF

The version of the plaintiff can be summarized as follows:

On September 12 at about 3pm, neighbour Fred Puzon saw the dog of

Arthur Sison bit Mary’s leg and even her arms which caused her to fall on the
ground. According to him, the dog kept barking after the said attack and acted
like it would also attack them.

It did not attack them because Arthur already came out of the house and
finally sent his dog inside his house yard. Afterwards, Arthur picked the child
up, called a tricycle nearby, and brought her to a clinic for a treatment.

Arthur is known along their street for selling ice-candies for some time.
People would go to his house to buy some of it.

Mary, according to Fred Puzon, approach Arthur’s gate and knock on

it that afternoon, however, no one answered the door. She kept on knocking
softly at the gate, where eventually Arthur’s dog came out of the yard. When
she had the chance, she held the gate open and called in saying “ Pagbilan nga
po ng ice-candy,” which probably triggered the dog to act as the person was
unknown to him. It attacked Mary from behind as she turned and ran to leave.

Peter Banag asked Arthur to pay his daughter P 20,000 for the damages
that she has suffered.

VERSION OF THE DEFENDANT

The version of the defendant can be summarized as follows:

In his letter, Arthur Sison claimed that he could not grant the demand
of Arthur Banag for the injuries that his daughter suffered when she came to
his house – that he was not a fault.

During the incident, he was napping in his house, he was just awakened
when he hear some commotion outside. He thought it was just people who
were quarrelling but it turned out that his dog, Prancer, had attacked a child.
 According to him, he immediately go up and ran out when he heard
that, where he also saw Fred Puzon, witness of the scene, trying to stop his
dog from attacking Peter Banag’s daughter.

He also iterated in the same letter that the gate had an automatic closer,
but at times he left it unlocked from the inside because his children often went
in and out – including the time of the attack to Mary. He defended that his
gate carried a written warning about the presence of his dog.

“I immediately stepped out into the streets as soon as I can and sent
Prancer inside. I was really surprised that you had allowed your daughter to
leave the house without an escort. I myself took care that my young children
did not go out alone.” (An excerpt from Arthur Sison’s letter addressed to
plaintiff Peter Banag)

It is also included in the letter the deeds the defendant has done when
that happened, such as he called a tricycle and brought Mary to a medical
clinic nearby for treatment of her wounds and for an injection – the he paid te
medical bill.

On the latter part of the letter, it says there that he was sorry but he
doesn’t believe that he should be held liable for the damages to the defendant’s
daughter.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. Arthur Sison is liable for damages.

II. Arthur Sison, dog owner, exercised proper diligence in making its
premises safe for its possible buyers of his ice candies.

III. Mary’s accident was not through her own contributory negligence.
 ARGUMENT

I.

Defendant is liable for damages suffered by the child

Pursuant to Article 2219 as provided in the Civil Code, moral damages

may be recovered in the following analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.

Quasi-delict defined in the Civil Code is:

“Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage

to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”
(Civil Code of the Philippines)

If the defendant didn’t leave their gate unlocked or should have at least
put a leash on their dog before taking a nap, which apparently an act showing
a lack of due care considering that he is selling ice candies inside his house –
there would have no attacking incident in the first place.

Possibly that he may claim that he had paid Mary’s medical bill but that
would not be enough because it does not cover the moral damages that Mary
is entitled to under the law.

II.

Arthur failed to exercise proper diligence in making its premises safe

for its possible buyers of his ice candies

In the case of Philippine National Construction Corporation v Court of

Appeals, it has been cited that “Negligence has been defined as the failure to
observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby
such other person suffers injury.”

One of the elements of simple negligence is that there be lack of

precaution on the part of the offender. While there is this standard test in
determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or
damage results to the person or property of another is: could a prudent man,
in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm
to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually
pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course
or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure
to do so constitutes negligence… (Philippine National Construction
Corporation V. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005)

In which in this case, the precautionary measure was not complied with
by Arthur Sison. Considering that he left the gate opened for the purpose,
according to him, his children often go in and out of the house and possibly
so he won’t be interrupted from his nap. For the record, if he would be
cautious enough, he would have thought suspending his selling while he was
napping or at least put a signage the he would not sell for a while ice candies
outside their house.

As he claimed that he had a written warning on the gate regarding the

danger brought by his dog, Prancer, it also fair to consider that the ones who
are patronizing his ice candies are mostly children like Mary, who probably
may not yet have the ability to grasp the warning, making it to be useless.

III.

Mary’s accident was not through her own contributory negligence.

Defendant Arthur Sison may assert that the “accident” was brought by
the contributory negligence on Mary’s capabilities, as he iterated in his letter
that letting Mary roam around the street unaccompanied to buy ice candy from
his house is negligence on behalf of the plaintiff, however, in spite of any
consideration whether she was accompanied by someone or not the proximate
cause of the her injuries would still constitute his (Arthur Sison’s) negligence
in letting the gate unlocked while his dog can freely attack anyone who would
attempt to enter or buy from his ice candies before taking a nap.

The abovementioned scenarios may be related to Article 2179 of the

Civil code which states that:

“When the plaintiff’s 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 defendant’s lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be awarded.”

In the case of Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 129792, December 21, 1999, the court ruled that a child under the age of
nine must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as
a matter of law.

Also, as mentioned in the case of Umali v. Bacani, G.R. No. L-40570,

January 30, 1976, parental negligence in allowing a young child to go out of
the house alone may be mostly qualify as contributory negligence and as such
would be covered by the second sentence of Article 2179.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Arthur Sison, being the dog owner in this case, which
that dog attacked Mary the daughter of Peter Sison, is liable for actual and
moral damages. And that the only reprieve due him would be a mitigation of
his liability under article 2179.

Hence, Arthur was negligent in the lack of precaution to maintain hi

premises safe from the possible buyers of his ice candies.
 PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that an Order be issued in resolving the claims here in
Plaintiff Peter Banaag be granted.

Sampaloc, Manila City for Quezon City, November 7, 2019.

RAGAZA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the plaintiff
GF, University Tower I, Moret St.
Sampaloc, Manila / CP # 0917-6000-000
E-mail address – mikragaza@gmail.com

By:

MARIA ISABELLA KATRINA M. RAGAZA

PTR No. 1900303 /11-07-19
IBP No. 1900313 /11-09-19
Roll No. 1900323
MCLE Compliance No. L-1900333 /03-09-19