LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Case of the Child and the Neighbour’s Dog
RE: Damages from Dog Bite
Group Members:
ERIK ANTHONY R.YBAÑEZ
JULIE MAIA M. PUDE
MARY DOROTHY T.TALIDRO
PAOLA CARMEN CORAZON L. RAFANAN
RENZ JAY M. DABALOS
ZCE C. ATON
ELOISE LYN VIDAL
May 14, 2022
I. ISSUE
Under the New Civil Code of the Philippines, can the dog
owner be held liable for damages of when his dog attacked the
unassisted 6-year old girl who opened the gate which caused the
dog to bite her?
Sub-issue:
1. Under Article 2183 of the New Civil Code will the child be
faulted when she cause the pushing of the door which allow the
dog to attack her causing her injuries?
2. Under Article 2219 of the New Civil Code on damages, can
the dog owner be held liable for additional damages from dog
bites in addition to paying for the medical bills?
II. RULE OF LAW
A. Statutory Law
The liability of possessor of animal for its injurious act to any
person is provided by Article 2183 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines which states 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 damage should come from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.”
The possessor of animal is liable for the damages. The word
damages used in the said provision is a general term of damages; this
“damages” has not specifically specify the kind or type of damages
included. To understand the meaning of damages in this provision, it
is notably important to refer its meaning to the one provided under the
Code. Article 2197 provides for the following damages (1) Actual or
compensatory (2) Moral (3) Nominal (4) Temperate (5) Liquated and
(6) Exemplary – this is the general law on damages and are hereby
adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Civil Code.
Article 2219 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines: “Moral
damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
XX
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
XX
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code defines quasi-delict as
follows: "Whoever by act or omission causes damages to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.”
Consequently, Article 2179 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines is
telling that “When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.
Article 2216 Civil Code further provides that no proof of
pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate,
liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. The
assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the
discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
B. Case Law
A possessor of an animal is liable for the injuries and damages
caused by his pet. Even if one is not the owner but the actual
possessor of the dog, he can still be held liable. As enunciated by the
Supreme Court in Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No.
74431, 06 November 1989), the liability here is not based on
negligence or lack of vigilance of the possessor of the animal. Rather,
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.
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.
(Vestil vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 48).
In the Jaco v. Baker 174 Or 191, 148 P2d 938, the court
explained that the gist of an action for damages by a vicious dog,
whose propensities are known, is not negligence in the manner of
keeping the dog; it is keeping the dog at all; and, the action is founded
upon the theory of maintenance of a nuisance, not negligence.
The word “damage” in these articles comprehends all that are
embraced in its meaning. It includes any and damages that a human
being may suffer in any and all the manifestations of his life: physical
or material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual, financial,
economic, social, political, religious. (Castro vs. Acro Taxicab Co., 82
Phil 360)
III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
Issue: Under the New Civil Code of the Philippines, can the dog
owner be held liable for damages of when his dog attacked the
unassisted 6-year old girl who opened the gate which caused the
dog to bite her?
Arthur is liable for damages because he owns the dog that
attacked Mary.
Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if
the animal should “escape or be lost” and so be removed from his
control. Under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, “anyone causes
damage to another by act or omission, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to compensate for the damage done.” If there is no pre-
existing contractual relationship between the parties, such fault or
carelessness is considered a quasi-delict and is covered by the
requirements of this Chapter.”
Article 2183 of the Civil Code covers the dog owner’s liability. It
provides that the possessor of an animal, or anyone may use it, is
accountable for any damage it may cause, even if the animal escapes
or is lost. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers
even tame ones as long as they cause injury. This liability will end only
if the damages are caused by force majeure or the fault of the person
who has been injured as the proximate cause.
Based on the antecedents of the case, it is clear that Mr. Sison
has a civil liability to answer of the medical and hospital expenses
necessary to treat the Mary who was bitten by his own dog. This is
mandatory regardless of whether the dog was tamed provoked by the
victim. The defense of contributory negligence of the victim minor does
not even exculpate the dog owner liability under Article 2183. When a
dog bites, pet owner is automatically liable and is required to seek
immediate medical relief for the victim.
In addition, it makes no difference either whether the victim was
a minor or an adult, or whether he or she was alone. Even if the victim
voluntarily pushes the door open letting the dog out, the dog owner’s
liability for the injuries caused by his pet is unaffected. The liability
subsists. There is still lack of vigilance of the possessor the animal.
Thus the owner of the animal must answer for the damages.
Sub-issue: Under Article 2183 of the New
Civil Code will the child be faulted when she
cause the pushing of the door which allow
the dog to attack her causing her injuries?
No. The minor child cannot be faulted for the injuries she
suffered from the dog bites.
Mary has right to present in the premise of Arthur Sison’s house.
She was there to buy ice-candy, which he admitted to selling for a
while to support his family and supplement their needs. It is known to
their neighbourhood that Mr. Sison own a store and sells ice candy,
particularly to children. The girl can hardly be faulted for whatever she
might have done to buy ice candy. Pushing the gate open to call the
attention of homeowner is a natural act from the perspective of an
innocent child; she could not have predicted that there is an impending
injury awaiting for her.
As for the alleged warning and dog safety signage on the gate,
the dog owner seemed to forget that Mary was only six years old at
the time she was attacked, young and cannot read and understand
comprehensively well together. Keeping signage is not enough to
show his diligence in keeping his neighbours safe, especially the kids,
against any possible attack by his dog.
Sub-issue: Under Article 2219 of the
New Civil Code on damages, can the
dog owner be held liable for additional
damages from dog bites in addition to
paying for the medical bills?
Yes. The possessor of animal is liable for the damages (Art.
2183,Civil Code).
The word damages used in the said provision is a general term
of damages. Article 2197 provides for the following damages (1) Actual
or compensatory (2) Moral (3) Nominal (4) Temperate (5) Liquated and
(6) Exemplary – this is the general law on damages and are hereby
adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Civil Code.
On this part our analysis will focus on the whether the victim is
entitled for additional indemnity for Moral damages. Article 2219 of the
New Civil Code (2) provides that moral damages may be recovered in
Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. The concept of quasi-delicts is
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.
In the case at hand, Mr. Sison admits through his letter that
despite their gate having an automatic lock, which apparently held for
the purpose of keeping their pet dog inside, was at times left unlocked.
If the house owner had exercised due care in ensuring that the gates
remained closed, the dog-biting incident could have been avoided.
Mary’s injuries were caused not only by the dog, but primarily by
the dog’s owner’s negligence. Because of the physical injuries
suffered, moral damages should be awarded based on Article 2219 of
the Civil Code. Arthur Sison may argue that paying Mary’s medical
bills should suffice, but that does not cover the moral damages Mary
is entitled to under Article 2219 (2) of the Civil Code, which addresses
quasi-delicts resulting in physical injuries. The general rule on
damages is not alternative in nature; the victim may claim one or more
damages depending on the circumstances of the case. Mr. Sison’s
negligence, which can be inferred from his own admission, warrants
moral damages on the part of the victim’s family. Furthermore, the
victim suffers not only physical injury but also the psychological trauma
as a result of the horrible dog-biting incident.
Mary, who is only six years old, is likely to experience physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, or serious anxiety as a result of a
horrific incident. Because of the dog owner’s negligence, the child is
at risk of experiencing this trauma. Natural justice requires that a
proper indemnity be provided to alleviate the child’s bad experience,
as well as compensation for her psychological sufferings.
IV. COUNTER-ANALYSIS
Article 2179 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines is telling
that “When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages”. The rule
generally is that there is no liability where a wrongful act of the injured
person contributed to the injury.
A person who unnecessarily or without cause or excuse
knowingly places himself within the reach of a wild animal securely
fastened which he knows to be dangerous, he cannot recover for the
injury resulting from an attack by such animal. A plaintiff may also
deprive himself of a right to complain, if notwithstanding warnings
given to him and without the knowledge of the keeper, he exposes
himself to be attacked.
Arthur, the dog owner, may not be liable for damages because
he showed ordinary diligence by posting a warning on the gate
precisely to apprise everyone that there is dog guarding his house.
Knowing that the victim’s family and the dog owner’s family are
neighbours, it is safe to assume that the child had knowledge of the
presence of a dog in the house. Among the neighbourhood, it is no
secret that the family of Mr. Sison owned a pet dog. Still, Mary wilfully
and knowingly pushed the gate of Mr. Sison’s house, exposing herself
to a dog attack.
Another justification that may avoid the dog owner, Arthur Sison,
from paying indemnity is own recklessness of the victim’s father. Peter
leaving Mary unattended is the proximate cause of injury in this case.
If Peter had behaved with the attentiveness of a decent father, the
incident would have not happened. Every parent is responsible to their
child for safety, supervision and control. Mary’s act as a child is
attributable to his own parent which exercise parental control over her.
Since Peter was negligent in failing to keep ordinary supervision over
his child, he contributed to the injury suffered by Mary.
Thus, the father’s negligence was also the cause of injury.
Peter’s responsibility is clear; failing on this he may not be allowed to
recover damages under Article 2179 of the Civil Code.
On additional compensation for moral damages, it may not be
awarded if there is no legal basis thereof, nor may it be imposed in
substitution of civil indemnity. (People vs. Maramara, 317 SCRA 222).
Civil liabilities in most dog-biting case are limited only to actual and
compensatory, some may include exemplary damages. All claims for
damages are backed up with evidence factually and are measurable.
Moral damages in this case is not appropriate since it cannot be
measured reliably, and its basis is vague and unclear in the first place.
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that, Arthur Sison
remains liable for the damages caused by his dog's attack on the 6-
year-old victim.
In Article 2183 of the Civil Code of the Philippines 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
damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage.”
There is no question that the owner of the animal that attacked
a person, causing injury to the latter, must immediately assist the dog
bite victim and bear all medical expenses and other incidental
expenses related to the victim's injuries. In this case, although Mr.
Sison has already paid for the victim's medical expenses, he may still
be collected for a series of follow-up treatment and vaccinations after
the initial injections.
Moreover, the provision on the Rule of Damages used in Article
2183 is not exclusive for actual and compensatory damages alone,
other type of damages may be claimed under the law based on the
circumstances of the fact of the case and upon discretion of the court.
Moral damages may be awarded legally on the basis of negligence or
upon 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.
Therefore, the victim’s family may still claim moral damages in
accordance with Article 2219 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which
states that “Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous cases: (3) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.” Dog
bites cause not only physical wounds but also mental and
psychological trauma from such horrific incident. As a six-year-old
child, this event has a profound emotional, mental, and psychological
impact on her. Victim therefore, should be legally entitled to recover
moral damages as a result of this traumatic experience.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
The victim’s father is hereby recommended to pursue legal
action for indemnity for moral damages based on the dog-biting
incident where his six-year-old child was horribly attacked and bitten
by the neighbour’s dog.
