Re: Legal opinion on the liability of Mr. Arthur Sison, the owner of the
dog.
Based on the narration of your eyewitness, Fred Puzon, and the letter
from Mr. Arthur Sison, the facts are taken as follows:
“That on September 12, 2010 at around 3 in the afternoon, your six year old
daughter, Mary, went to Arthur Sison’s house to buy ice candies. She was
knocking on the gate but since nobody answered, she tested the gate by
pushing it, and when it yielded, the dog jumped out and attacked her. When
Mr. Sison who was napping at that time heard the commotion, he immediately
came to Mary’s aid, brought her to a clinic and paid for her medical expenses.”
The controversy arose when you asked Mr. Sison to pay for the damages
suffered because his dog attacked your daughter. However, Mr. Sison made
it clear in his letter that he is not liable for damages since there was a sign
on his gate indicating the presence of the dog and Mary had failed to heed
the said sign. Further, he insinuated that the attack was your fault since you
let your child roamed outside without an escort.
Thus, the meat of the issue lies on whether or not Mr. Sison is liable
for damages.
It is apparent that Mr. Sison was negligent when he took a nap and left
his gate unlocked, knowing fully well that there was a dog in his premises.
Had he locked the gate, the dog would not have been able to jump out and
attacked Mary.
Mr. Sison may argue that he exercised due diligence by the fact that
there was a sign on the gate as a caution of the presence of the dog. However,
Legal Opinion No.
2
PAGE
2
at
Legal Writing
despite the warning, Mr. Sison should not have left his gate unlocked as the
sign may not deter his customers from coming in and buying ice candies. A
reasonably prudent man exercising due diligence should have the foresight to
expect that some customers, especially very young ones, may not have the
ability to read the sign.
“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.”
He may alleged that since Mary was the one who came to his house,
unaccompanied by any adult, there was negligence on your part which was
the proximate cause of Mary’s injuries. To address this contention, we look
into the case of Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals where the
Court ruled “that a child under nine years of age must be conclusively
presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law”. This
ruling completely absolves Mary of any fault attributable to her, thus,
enabling her to recover damages.
Finally, the damages referred to in this case are not only actual
damages but also moral damages as enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil
Code.
Respectfully yours,