Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Quezon City, Branch 123


Peter Banag
Plaintiff,

-versus-

Arthur Sison
Defendant

x------------------------------------------------------------x


DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM


Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:


The Case


Plaintiff Peter Banag filed this action for declaratory relief and damages against
defendant Arthur Sison claiming the Court needed to ascertain that the defendant must
pay for the damages caused by the biting of the pet dog of the defendant because of
Sisons negligence. In its answer, Arthur Sison claimed that he exercised due care and
precautions. The plaintiff claimed for moral damage against Arthur Sison.


The Facts

Arthur Sison lived in 12 Annapolis Street, Cubao, Quezon City. He is engaged in
the business of selling ice-candies. His ice-candies are sold at the gate when people came
to buy. The gate had an automatic closer. But at times, Mr. Sison left it unlocked from the
inside because his children often went in and out. Mr. Sisons gate carried a written
warning about the presence of his dog, Prancer.

Mary is about six years old. Mary went to Arthur Sisons house to buy ice-
candies. She approach to Arthur Sisons gate and knock on it but no one answered. Mary
kept on knocking softly at the gate when no one answered. Arthur Sisons dog came out
of the yard. As Mary tested the gate by pushing it, the gate yielded and the dog jumped
out. Mary held the gate open and called in saying that she wanted to buy ice-candy.
Pagbilan nga po ng ice candy, she said. The dog go after her from behind as she turned
and ran to leave. Fred Puzon immediately ran to help Mary but unfortunately he tripped
on the gutter and fell on his hands and knees. Mr. Puzon recovered quickly, moved on,
and kicked on the dog away. The dog kept on barking and looked as if it would attack
Mary and Fred Puzon.. Fred Puzon stood by to protect Mary from further attack of the
dog. The dog did not attack Mary and Fred Puzon again because Arthur Sison came out
of his house and sent his dog into his yard. Arthur Sison picked up Mary, called a tricycle
ad brought her to a nearby clinic for treatment.





The Issues



1. WHETHER OR NOT SISON IS NEGLIGENT IN KEEPING HIS PET DOG
FROM BITING BANAGS DAUGHTER.

2. WHETHER OR NOT SISON IS LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES SUSTAINED
BY BANAGS DAUGHTER WHEN HIS PET DOG BIT THE LATTER.

3. WHETHER OR NOT SISON IS LIABLE TO PAY FOR MORAL DAMAGES.


Arguments


I


ARTHUR SISON IS NOT NEGLIGENT IN KEEPING HIS PET DOG
FROM BITING BANAGS DAUGHTER.


Peter Banag claims that Arthur Sison is negligent to the incident happened on
September 12, Saturday. Mr. Banag contends that Mr. Sison did not exercise degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance in keeping his pet dog from biting Mr. Banags daughter.
Nevertheless, The court ruled in Miranda vs Ignacio that Provocation is a legal defense
used when after a provocative act the defendant loses control and commits a violent
crime. Hence, the accuse will not be liable for any damages. Moreover, in Marzaledo vs.
People the court ruled that a person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree
whe he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling.

In the case at bar, the testimony of the witness shows that Mr. Sison gives much
precaution on the existence of his pet dog. Furthermore, it is clearly stated in the
testimony of the witness, Fred Puzon, that provocation came from Mr. Banagss
daughter, Mary. Also, Mary trespass the premises of Mr. Sison on September 12. Thus:

Q: What did you see Mary doing from where you stood?

A: I saw Mary approach Arthurs gate and knock on it. But
no one answered.

Q: So what did she do?

A: Still she kept on knocking softly at the gate.

Q: What happened next?

A: A young girl of her age passed by and Mary waived at
her.

Q: So what happened next?

A: Arthurs dog came out of the yard. As Mary tested the
gate by pushing it, the gate yielded and the dog jumped out.


The pet dog of Mr. Sison will surely not attack Mr. Banags daughter if she did
not push, tested and yielded the gate of Mr. Sison. In addition, a written warning is placed
on the gate of Arthur Sisons gate to remind the people approaching his house about the
existence of his pet dog. Thus, it is expected that people who will buy ice candies to the
house of Mr. Sison will exercise due care and precaution.

Therefore, Mr. Sison is not negligent in keeping his pet dog from biting Mary,
Mr. Peter Banags daughter. Mr. Sison exercised due care and give precaution for the
buyers of his ice candies. Yet, Mary did not mind the warning and provoked the pet dog
to attack her.


II.


ARTHUR SISON IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES SUSTAINED BY
BANAGS DAUGHTER WHEN HIS PET DOG BIT THE LATTER.


The 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. Furthermore, the court ruled in Fullerton v. Conan that if a person
opened a gate and wandered into the dog owners premises will be held not liable for the
damages to the victim.


In the case of Mr. Banags daughter, it has been showed that Mr. Arthur Sison is
not negligent in keeping his pet dog from biting Mary. Rather, Mr. Banags daughter,
Mary, provoked the dog to attack her. Moreover, she also opened the gate without the
permission of the owner of the premises and the dog.


Therefore, Mr. Sison cannot be held liable for the injuries sustained by Mr.
Banags daughter when his pet dog bit the latter. However, because of Mr. Sisons pity
on Mary, she paid for the medical bills for the treatment of the latter.


III.


ARTHUR SISON IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY FOR MORAL DAMAGES.


The law provides in the Civil Code of the Philippines, 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 defendants wrongful act.

Accordingly, since it was proven that Arthur Sison is not negligent in the biting of
his pet dog which caused damages and injuries to Mary, Mr Sison is not liable to pay
moral damage. The law provides that moral damages shall be awarded if the injuries
acquired are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act. In this case, the
defendant Mr. Arthur Sison did not commit any wrongful act.

To sum it up, Mr. Arthur Sison exercised due care and precautionary measures to
make sure the safety of the people approaching his house from his pet dog. Thus, he is
not negligent to the biting of the latter. However, the victim trespass on the premises of
Mr. Sison and made provocation to the pet of the accused which caused the attacking of
the dog. Therefore, Arthur Sison is not liable to pay for moral damage..