LEGAL OFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: Atty. Joan Dymphna Saniel-Amit

FROM: Angela Nicole S. Elpa

DATE: March 05, 2019

RE: Whether or not the defendant is liable for damages as defined under Article
2176, Article 2179 and Article 2183 of the New Civil Code.

STATEMENT OF THE ASSIGNMENT

In compliance with your request, I have prepared a legal office memorandum

to rule on the liability of Arthur Sison for damages to Mary Banaag, the minor who
was attacked by his dog and to the latter’s father, Peter Banaag.

ISSUE

Whether or not the defendant, Arthur Sison is liable to Mary for damages as
defined in, Article 2176, Article 2179 and Article 2183 of the New Civil Code.

BRIEF ANSWER

With the express provisions under Articles 2176, and 2179 2183 of the New Civil
Code and some Supreme Court decisions, the defendant, Arthur Sison is liable for
damages notwithstanding his defenses that he was not at fault. He was negligent as a
dog owner, thus he would be responsible for any damage it would cause.
Notwithstanding his claims on payment of Mary’s medical bills, his liability subsists
since this defense may only mitigate said liabilities.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Sometime on September 12, 2016, Mary Banaag, six years old and a daughter
of Peter Banaag, went out to buy ice-candy. When she reached the house of Arthur
Sison, the ice-candy seller, he knocked the latter’s gate but got no response. She
pushed the gate until it yielded. Arthur’s dog, Prancer, then jumped out and attacked
her from behind. Coming to her rescue, Fred Puzon kicked the dog away. Arthur
went out, apparently awakened by the commotion and shouts. Thereafter, he
brought Mary to a nearby clinic and paid for the child’s medical treatment.

Because of the incident, Peter Banaag demanded Php 20, 000 as damages for
the injuries suffered by her daughter. In response, Arthur rejected the demand
claiming that he was at fault, therefore not liable.

ANALYSIS

Based on the established facts, Arthur Sison is liable because according to Article
2176 of the New Civil Code, “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.”

As for the nature of Arthur’s liability, the provision that governs is Article 2183 of
the Civil Code. It provides that:

“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 damages should come from force majeure from the fault of
the person who has suffered damage.”

The Supreme Court explained said provision in the case of Vestil v. Intermediate
Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74431, 179 SCRA 47), saying that: According to Manresa, the
obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on
the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the
damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who
possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which
such animal may cause.