Legal Writing - Assignment - Apr302020

Fariola, Lea Gabrielle M.
– M7
Legal Writing Saturday 6:00-8:00 P.M.
April 30, 2020
THE CASE OF A CHILD AND A NEIGHBOR
In the interview with Mr. Fred Puzon, the person who witnessed the incident, and the
letter from Arthur Sison, the owner of the dog, the following facts are gathered:
 On September 20, Saturday, at about 3 p.m., Mary went to Arthur’s house to buy iced
candies. When Mary approached Arthur’s gate and knocked on it, no one answered, so
she kept on knocking softly on the gate. After which, as Mary tested the gate by pushing
it, the gate yielded and the dog jumped out going after Mary and bit her leg and arms as
she fell to the ground.
 Arthur was awakened by the commotion he heard outside his house and heard someone
shouting that his dog had attacked a child, so he immediately came out and saw Fred
trying to stop his dog so he sent his dog inside. He then picked up Mary who lay on the
ground outside his gate, called a tricycle and brought her to a nearby clinic for an
injection and treatment of her wounds and he also paid for the medical bill.
 Because of the injuries suffered by his daughter from Arthur’s dog, Peter Banag demands
Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP 20,000.00) in damages. However, Arthur answered in
letter that he is not at fault and will not pay the demanded sum since his gate had a
warning sign to beware of the dog. He also noted that Peter should not have let his
daughter leave his house without an escort since he never his own children go out alone.
RELEVANT LAWS OR RULES
The issues in this case are:
1. Whether or not Arthur can be held liable for damages because of the dog attack;
2. Whether or not Arthur exercised proper diligence in making sure its place is safe for his
customers; and
3. Whether or not Mary’s accident was because of his own contributory negligence.
These may be answered with the help of the following relevant laws and rules:
A. Section 5 of the Republic Act No. 9482: Anti-Rabies Act of 2007
Responsibilities of Pet Owner – All Pet Owners shall be required to:
(a) Have their Dog regularly vaccinated against Rabies and maintain a registration
card which shall contain all vaccinations conducted on their Dog, for accurate record
purposes.
(b) Submit their Dogs for mandatory registration.
(c) Maintain control over their Dog and not allow it to roam the streets or any Public
Place without a leash.
(d) Be a responsible Owner by providing their Dog with proper grooming, adequate
food and clean shelter.
(e) Within twenty-four (24) hours, report immediately any Dog biting incident to the
Concerned Officials for investigation or for any appropriate action and place such
Dog under observation by a government or private veterinarian.
(f) Assist the Dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical expenses incurred
and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s injuries.
B. Section 11 (4) of the Republic Act No. 9482: Anti-Rabies Act of 2007
Penalties
(4) Pet Owners who refuse to have their Dog put under observation and do not
shoulder the medical expenses of the person bitten by their Dog shall be meted a fine
of Twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00
C. Article 2176 of the New Civil Code
Quasi-delicts
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.
D. Article 2179 of the New Civil Code
Quasi-delicts
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.
E. Article 2183 of the New Civil Code
Quasi-delicts
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.
F. Article 2219 (2) of the New Civil Code
Moral Damages
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.
PARALLEL CASES
Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Honorable Court of Appeals (G.R. 129792)
The court applied the conclusive presumption that favors children below nine (9) years
old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. The based this on Judge Sangco’s book
that states that a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without
discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability.
Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. 74431)
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.
Corliss v. The Manila Road Co. (G.R. L-21291)
In this case, the court cited two definitions of negligence - the failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which
the circumstance justly demand whereby such other person suffers injury. And the case of Ahern
v. Oregon Telephone Co. defining negligence as want of the care required by the circumstances.
It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute term and its application depends upon the situation
of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require.
Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a
want of ordinary care under the circumstances.
Taylor v. The Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company (G.R. 4977)
This case speaks about contributory negligence and liability for damage. When the
immediate cause of an accident resulting in an injury is the plaintiff’s own act, which contributed
to the principal occurrence as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover damages for the
injury.
Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 159270)
“Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests
of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The elements of simple negligence: are (1)
that there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender; ...
The 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 this: 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...”
Umali v. Bacani (G.R. L-40570)
“parental negligence in allowing a young child to go out of the house alone may at most qualify
as contributory negligence and as such would be covered by the second sentence of Article
2179.”

Legal Writing - Assignment - Apr302020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Writing - Assignment - Apr302020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Writing - Assignment - Apr302020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fariola, Lea Gabrielle M.

THE CASE OF A CHILD AND A NEIGHBOR

RELEVANT LAWS OR RULES

The issues in this case are:

A. Section 5 of the Republic Act No. 9482: Anti-Rabies Act of 2007

Responsibilities of Pet Owner – All Pet Owners shall be required to:

C. Article 2176 of the New Civil Code

D. Article 2179 of the New Civil Code

F. Article 2219 (2) of the New Civil Code

Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.

Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Honorable Court of Appeals (G.R. 129792)

Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. 74431)

Corliss v. The Manila Road Co. (G.R. L-21291)

Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 159270)

Umali v. Bacani (G.R. L-40570)

You might also like