ARTHUR SISON IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES SUSTAINED BY MARY
ARGUMENTS AGAINST MR. SISON ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MR. SISON
Mr. Sison is the possessor of the dog that jumped through his gate, which Mary was wandering around the area without the supervision of an
caused injuries to Mary by biting her leg and then her arms while she adult or her parent. Therefore, the parents of Mary shall be put into
was trying to run away from the dog. Therefore, Mr. Sison shall be held blame as they let their child wander in the area unaccompanied.
responsible for the damage caused by his dog.
Mr. Sison lacks due diligence on his part when he took a nap, for his own Mary opened the gate of Mr. Sison without the permission of the owner
convenience, leaving his dog unleashed and his gate open. of the house. The dog, being unfamiliar with Mary, attacked her.
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault Mr. Sison quickly rushed Mary into the hospital after knowing that his
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Mr. Sison is the dog bit the child, and fully paid her medical expense. Moreover, moral
owner of the who dog bit the leg and arm of Mary. Therefore, Mr. Sison damages shall be awarded if the injuries acquired are the proximate
is responsible for damages which is the result of his dog doings. result of the defendant’s wrongful act. However, Mr. Arthur Sison did
not commit any wrongful act. Therefore, Mr. Sison shall not be held
responsible for any damages.
*
Owner of pets is not responsible for damages and acts committed by
their pet when the victim provokes the pet to do such acts. A warning
sign is written in the gate of Mr. Sison saying that there is a dog within
his house premises. Mary, notwithstanding the warning, still opened the
gate. If Mary took the necessary precaution, the dog would not have been
provoked and therefore, no attack would have happened.
POSSIBLE ISSUES: (not sure with the distinctions though)
PRINCIPAL ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not Arthur Sison be held liable for the injuries sustained by Mary, the daughter of Peter Banag.
SUBORDINATE ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not Arthur Sison exercised due diligence in making his store or house premises safe to its customers or neighbors.
2. Whether or not Arthur Sison is liable to pay for moral damages.
3. Whether or not the injuries sustained by Mary was due to her own negligence.
RELEVANT ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not Mary provoked the dog of the Arthur Sison.
2. Whether or not Arthur Sison purposely left his gate unlocked.
Whether or not Mary went to Mr. Sison’s store/house to buy an ice-candy. (im not sure what type, but either relevant or irrelevant ata toh? )
EXTRA NOTES: (not included)
Article 2183 of the Civil Code states that “The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage.” Mr. Sison is the possessor of the dog that jumped through his gate, which caused an injury to Mary by biting her
leg and then her arms while she is trying to run away from the dog. Therefore, Mr. Sison shall be held responsible for the damage caused by his dog.
Article 2179 of the Civil Code, 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.” Mr. Sison has a warning about the presence of his
dog written in his gate. Mary, unaccompanied by any adult at the time of the incident, is knocking on Mr. Sison’s gate trying to buy an ice-candy but
because there is no one answering her, notwithstanding the warning, she tried opening the gate. Due to that action of Mary, the dog may have
thought that someone is trying to rob in the house of Mr. Sison, the reason why it attacked Mary. Therefore, Mr. Sison shall not be held responsible
for the damages as it is Mary’s fault why she got bitten by the dog.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code states that “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done.”
RA 9482 of the Philippines, Section 12 states that the owner of pets is not responsible for damages and acts committed by their pet when the victim
provokes the pet to do such acts.
Article 2217 that Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act.
* A child under nine years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
