Renelin G.

Piñon
Legal Writing/SUN 10:00AM – 12:00PM/FCJ 302

1. (1) Q. Fred, how old are you?

A. I am twenty-one, Attorney.

2. (3) Q. Where do you live?

A. I live at 24 Annapolis St., Cubao, Quezon City.

3. (4) Q. Did you see the dog attack Mr. Banag’s daughter?

A. Yes, sir. I saw it bite Mary’s leg and even her arms as
she fell to the ground.

4. (5) Q. Do you know who owned the dog?

A. Yes, sir, the dog belonged to Arthur Sison.

5. (13)Q. How did you get to know Arthur?

A. We are neighbors. He lives at 12 Annapolis street,

the same street I lived.

6. (16)Q. When did the incident involving Mary happen?

A. It happened on September 12 at about 3p.m.

7. (17)Q. What were you doing at that time?

A. I was waiting on Annapolis Street for my friend

Henry Uy to come and pick me up so we could go to
the mall.

8. (19)Q. What did you see Mary doing from where you stood?

A. I saw Mary approach Arthur’s gate and knocked on it.

But no one answered.

9. (23)Q. What did Mary do?

A. She held the gate open and called in saying that she
wanted to buy ice candy. “Pagbilan nga po ng ice
candy," she said.
10. (21)Q. What happened next?

(22)A. Arthur’s dog came out to the yard. As Mary tested

the gate by pushing it, the gate yielded and the dog
jumped out.

11. (24)Q. So what happened?

(24)A. That was the time I saw the dog go after her. It
attacked her from the behind as she turned and ran
to leave.

12. (6)Q. What did you do when you saw the dog attack Mary?

A. I immediately run to help her but unfortunately, I

tripped on the gutter and fell on my hands and
knees.

13. (22)Q. So what happened next?

(7)A. I recovered quikly, moved on, and kicked the dog

away. I then stood by and protect Mary from
further attacks.

14. (9)Q. Did it attack you?

A. No, because Arthur came out of his house and sent

his dog into his yard.

15. (10)Q. How about Mary, what happened to her?

A. Arthur picked her up, called a tricycle, and brought

her to a nearby clinic for her treatment.

16. (11)Q. And what did you do?

A. My friend then arrived and we left for the mall.

Renelin G. Piñon
Legal Writing/SUN 10:00AM – 12:00PM/FCJ 302

Short summary of facts from Mr. Banag’s Point of view.

Peter Banag, the Father of Mary Banag, demanded P20,000 from

Arthur Sison as payment for the injuries suffered by her daughter.
The injuries were caused by Arthur Sison’s dog, when it attacked
Mary last September 12 at around 3pm.

Short summary of facts from Mr. Sison’s Point of view.

On September 12 at around 3pm, Arthur Sison was awakened by

a commotion from his neighbors regarding his dog, Prancer, that it
attacked Mary Banag. Arthur immediately ran towards the street
and sent Prancer inside his house. He saw Fred protecting Mary
from Prancer. Arthur called a tricycle and brought Mary to a
medical clinic nearby, wherein Mary’s mother soon followed. Arthur
believes that he is not at fault since he paid for the medical bill of
Mary, his house has a written warning that a dog is in his house
and that Mary’s parents were the ones at fault since they left their
child without any company while outside their house.

Issue:

Whether or not Arthur is liable to Mary for damages

Laws that may govern the case:

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 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.

Article 2183 of the Civil Code. It 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
damages should come from force majeure from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage.
Renelin G. Piñon
Legal Writing/SUN 10:00AM – 12:00PM/FCJ 302

Supreme Court rulings related to the case:

The case of Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74431,

179 SCRA 47), saying that:

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.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court

of Appeals (G.R. No. 129792, 321 SCRA 375) that “a child under
nine years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of
contributory negligence as a matter of law” covers Mary, hence
throwing the notion of contributory negligence on her part out the
window. As for the second scenario, the ruling in Umali v. Bacani
(G.R. No. L-40570, 69 SCRA 263) provides that 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.