Legal Writing

I.

Legal dispute
Banags claim that his daughter has a right for damages from Sison for the
damages she suffered caused by Sisons dog. Sisons denial of the claim.

II.

Principal Issue
Whether or not Sison is liable to pay Banags claim of her daughters incurred
damages
III.

Relevant Facts
A.

IV.

Relevant Laws
A. Plaintiff (Peter Banag)
Statute Laws
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
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 quasi-delict xxx
Art 2183 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
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 in case the damage
should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who
has suffered damage.
Article 2219 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous
cases: xxx (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; xxx
Case Laws
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
Vestil v. Intermediate Appelate Court
The obligation imposed by Article 2183 is not based on the
negligence or the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user
of the animal causing the damage. It (Article 2183) 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
It does not matter either that, as the petitioners also contend, the dog
was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. The
law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones
as long as they cause injury. As for the alleged provocation, the
petitioners forget that Theness was only three years old at the time
she was attacked and can hardly be faulted for whatever she might
have done to the animal.
B. Defendant (Authur Sison)
Statute Laws
Article 2179 of the New Civil Code
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.
Section 5 of the R.A. 9482 or the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007
All Pet Owners shall be required to: xxx (f) Assist the Dog bite victim
immediately and shoulder the medical expenses incurred and other
incidental expenses relative to the victims injuries.