Argument for the prosecution:

Arthur Sison did not exercise proper diligence in making its premises safe for its customers.
According to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damaged done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is govern by the provisions of this Chapter. As for the nature of Arthur Sison liability,
the provision that govers is Article 2183 of the Civil Code which states that the possessor of an
animal or whoever 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.
Considering that Arthur Sison was selling ice-candies, it is well-established that majority of his
market are kids in the neighborhood. At the time of the accident, Arthur lacks prudence when
for his own convenience, left his gate unlocked so that when his kids went in and out of his
house, his nap will not be distracted. If he was prudent enough, he should have thought of
either closing his store for a while or at least put the dog in a secure cage or bind the dog to a
sage place. Here, neither of the above precautionary measures was done nor considered. Thus,
Arthur Sison was negligent in making his premises safe for his customers.

Counter Argument of the defendant:

Arthur Sison is not liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code nor Article 2183 of the same Code.
On laws of property, Article 694 of the Civil Code states that a nuisance is an act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property or anything else which: (1) injures or endanges
the health and safety of others, (2) annoys or offends the senses, (3) shocks, defies, or
disregards decency or morality, (4)obstructs or interferes with free passage of any public
highway or street or any body of water, and (5) hinders or impairs the use of property. The child
committed nuisance when she held the gate open triggering the dog to attack her. The act of
opening the gate without calling the attention of the lawful occupant is a clear indication that
the said act was impliedly intended to injure or endanger the health and safety of others and to
annoy or offend the senses. The dogs attack was merely an act of defense against anyone who
unlawfully enters the house. Thus, Arthur Sison is not liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
nor Article 2183 of the same Code.
Argument of the defendant:

Peter Banag is liable for negligence and Mary is also liable for contributory negligence.
According to Article 2179 of the Civil Code, when the plaintiffs 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 defendants
lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages but the court shall mitigate the damages
rewarded. In this case Peter Banag let Mary roam the vicinity unaccompanied which constitutes
the proximate cause of her injuries. Mary also opened the gate without calling for its lawful
owner made her attacked by the dog. Thus, Peter Banag is liable for negligence and Mary is also
liable for contributory negligence.

Counter argument for the prosecution:

Peter Banag is not liable for negligence and Mary is not liable for contributory negligence. In the
case of Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 129792, 321 SCRA 375) the
Supreme Court ruled that a child 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of
contributory negligence as a matter of law. Also, in the case of Umali v. Bacani (G.R. No. L-
40570, 69 SCRA 263), it was held that parental negligence in allowing a young child to go out of
the house alone may at most qualify as contributory negligence. In this case, Peter Banag let
Mary who is under nine years of age, roam around their place unaccompanied. Thus, Peter
Banag is not liable for negligence and Mary is not liable for contributory negligence.