VESTIL V.

IAC (UY) 179 SCRA 47 December 6, 1989 FACTS: Theness was bitten by a dog while she was playing with the child of the petitioners in the house of the late Vicente Miranda, the father of Purita Vestil. She was rushed to the Cebu General Hospital, where she was treated for !ultiple lacerated wounds on the forehead." She was discharged after nine days but was re#ad!itted one wee$ later due to %o!iting of sali%a. The following day, on &ugust '(, ')*(, the child died. The cause of death was certified as broncho# pneu!onia. Theness de%eloped hydrophobia, a sy!pto! of rabies, as a result of the dog bites, and second, that asphy+ia broncho#pneu!onia, which ulti!ately caused her death, was a co!plication of rabies. Se%en !onths later, the pri%ate respondent ,-y. sued for da!ages, alleging that the petitioner were liable to the! as the possessors of &ndoy, the dog that bit and e%entually $illed their daughter. /udge /ose 0. 0a!olete of the Court of 1irst 2nstance of Cebu sustained the defendants. 2&C found that the Vestils were in possession of the house and the dog and so should be responsible under &rticle 3'45 of the Ci%il Code for the in6uries caused by the dog. 7n the strength of the foregoing testi!ony, the Court finds that the lin$ between the dog bites and the certified cause of death has been satisfactorily established. Howe%er, the petitioner content that the dog belonged to the deceased Vicente Miranda, that it was a ta!e ani!al, and that in any case no one witnessed that it bit Theness. ISSUE: 879 the Vestils are liable for the da!age caused by the dog. HELD: :es. &rticle. 3'45. The possessor of an ani!al or whoe%er !ay !a$e use of the sa!e is responsible for the da!age which it !ay cause, although it !ay escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the da!age should co!e fro! force !a6eure or fro! the fault of the person who has suffered da!age. 8hile it is true that she is not really the owner of the house, which was still part of Vicente Miranda;s estate, there is no doubt that she and her husband were its possessors at the ti!e of the incident in <uestion. There is e%idence showing that she and her fa!ily regularly went to the house, once or twice wee$ly. The Court finds that the lin$ between the dog bites and the certified cause of death has been satisfactorily established. 2t does not !atter that the dog was ta!e and was !erely pro%o$ed by the child into biting her. The law does not spea$ only of %icious ani!als but co%ers e%en ta!e ones as long as they cause in6ury. &s for the alleged pro%ocation, the petitioners forget that Theness was only three years old at the ti!e she was attac$ed and can hardly be faulted for whate%er she !ight ha%e done to the ani!al. b!"#$%"&' "m(&)e* b+ Ar%"c!e ,18- &. %/e C"0"! C&*e ") '&% b$)e* &' %/e 'e#!"#e'ce &r &' %/e (re)1me* !$c2 &. 0"#"!$'ce &. %/e (&))e))&r &r 1)er &. %/e $'"m$! c$1)"'# %/e *$m$#e. I% ") b$)e* &' '$%1r$! e31"%+ $'* &' %/e (r"'c"(!e &. )&c"$! "'%ere)% %/$% /e 4/& (&))e))e) $'"m$!) .&r /") 1%"!"%+, (!e$)1re &r )er0"ce m1)% $')4er .&r %/e *$m$#e 4/"c/ )1c/ $'"m$! m$+ c$1)e (D&c%r"'e).

5ACIS 0. 6 RALES 7.R. 8&. 169467 Febr1$r+ ,9, ,:1:

F$c%): &lfred =ennis Pacis, then '* years old and a first year student at the >aguio Colleges 1oundation ta$ing up >S Co!puter Science, died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he sustained while he was at the Top Gun 1irear!?s@ and &!!unition?s@ Store which was owned and operated by defendant /ero!e /o%anne Morales. 8ith &lfred Pacis at the ti!e of the shooting were &ristedes Matibag and /ason Herbolario. They were sales agents of the defendant, and at that particular ti!e, the careta$ers of the gun store. The bullet which $illed &lfred =ennis Pacis was fired fro! a gun brought in by a custo!er of the gun store for repair. =efendant Morales was in Manila at the ti!e. Matibag and Herbolario brought out the gun fro! the drawer and placed it on top of the table. &ttracted by the sight of the gun, the young &lfred =ennis Pacis got hold of the sa!e. Matibag as$ed &lfred =ennis Pacis to return the gun. The latter followed and handed the gun to Matibag. 2t went off, the bullet hitting the young &lfred in the head. & cri!inal case for ho!icide was filed against Matibag but he was howe%er ac<uitted of the charge against hi! because of the e+e!pting circu!stance of Aaccident" under &rt. '3, par. B of the 0e%ised Penal Code. >y agree!ent of the parties, the e%idence adduced in the cri!inal case for ho!icide against Matibag was reproduced and adopted by the! as part of their e%idence in the instant case. The trial court rendered its decision in fa%or of petitioners whereby defendant is ordered to pay da!ages to the for!er. 0espondent appealed to the Court of &ppeals whereby it re%ersed the trial courtCs =ecision and absol%ed respondent fro! ci%il liability under &rticle 3'4D of the Ci%il Code. Petitioners filed a !otion for reconsideration, which the Court of &ppeals denied, hence this petition. I))1e: 879 the C& erred in absol%ing the defendant of liability. Held: :es. Petitioners based their clai! for da!ages under &rticles 3'*E and 3'4D of the Ci%il Code. -nli$e the subsidiary liability of the e!ployer under &rticle 'D5 of the 0e%ised Penal Code, the liability of the e!ployer, or any person for that !atter, under &rticle 3'*E of the Ci%il Code is pri!ary and direct, based on a personCs own negligence. &rticle 3'*E states A8hoe%er by act or o!ission causes da!age to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the da!age done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre#e+isting contractual relation between the parties, is called <uasi#delict and is go%erned by the pro%isions of this Chapter." This case in%ol%es the accidental discharge of a firear! inside a gun store. & higher degree of care is re<uired of so!eone who has in his possession or under his control an instru!entality e+tre!ely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of dangerous instru!entalities has the duty to ta$e e+ceptional precautions to pre%ent any in6ury being done thereby. U'!"2e %/e &r*"'$r+ $..$"r) &. !".e &r b1)"'e)) 4/"c/ "'0&!0e !"%%!e &r '& r")2, $ b1)"'e)) *e$!"'# 4"%/ *$'#er&1) 4e$(&') re31"re) %/e e;erc")e &. $ /"#/er *e#ree &. c$re (D&c%r"'e). &s a gun store owner, respondent is presu!ed to be $nowledgeable about firear!s safety and should ha%e $nown ne%er to $eep a loaded weapon in his store to a%oid unreasonable ris$ of har! or in6ury to others. 0espondent has the duty to ensure that all the guns in his store are not loaded. 8ith !ore reason, guns accepted by the store for repair should not be loaded precisely because they are defecti%e and !ay cause an accidental discharge such as what happened in this case. 0espondent was clearly negligent when he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring first that it was not loaded. 2n the first place, the defecti%e gun should ha%e been stored in a %ault. >efore accepting the defecti%e gun for repair, respondent should ha%e !ade sure that it was not loaded to pre%ent any untoward accident. 1or failing to insure that the gun was not loaded, respondent hi!self was negligent. Clearly, respondent did not e+ercise the degree of care and diligence re<uired of a good father of a fa!ily, !uch less the degree of care re<uired of so!eone dealing with dangerous weapons, as would e+e!pt hi! fro! liability in this case. 8HF0F170F, we G0&9T the petition.