Legal Dispute: No legal dispute can yet be established since no formal complaint by Mr.

Banag was filed against Mr. Sison and consequently, there was no denial or refusal to own for the responsibility of the damages caused by his dog to Mary. Facts: Mary Banag, about six years old, went to Arthur Sisons house to buy ice-candy on September 12 at about 3 PM. Mary knocked on the gate, but having gotten no response, she tested the gate by pushing it. Upon doing so, the gate yielded and Arthurs dog jumped out, went after Mary and attacked her from behind. She was saved by Fred Puzon, a neighbor, who ran to protect her. Arthur went out, sent the dog back to his yard and bought Mary to a nearby general hospital for treatment. Rule of Law: A.) B.) C.) D.) Issues: A.) Whether or not Mr. Sison can be held liable for damages with the injuries sustained by Mary? B.) Whether or not Mr. Banag may be also held liable for negligence on leaving a minor unattended roaming around a public place without parental supervision necessary to minor her age? Arguments: A.) Yes, Mr. Sison in merely possessing the dog may be held liable for the injuries sustained by Mary pursuant to Art. 2183 of the Civil Code which stated 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 damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. Hence, since Mr. Sison is the owner of the dog that attacked Mary, he is then held liable for the damages caused by the said animal. B.) Yes, under Articles 2176, 2179, & 2180 of the Civil Code, Mr. Banag may be held liable for the incident as well. Although the proximate cause of injury is the dog of Mr. Sison, the fact that Mr. Banag allowed his minor daughter to wander along public places without parental supervision can serve as contributory negligence to the proximate cause of injury resulting to the incident. Thus, pursuant to the aforementioned Articles above under quasi-delicts of the Civil Code, Mr. Banag may be also held liable for parental negligence. Conclusion: Article 2183 of the Civil Code Article 2176 of the Civil Code Article 2179 of the Civil Code Article 2180 of the Civil Code

Based upon the facts given, a definite conclusion as to how would the dispute be resolved is not yet ascertainable since a formal complaint was not filed in so far as the facts are concerned, a legal dispute would therefore be non-existent. Moreover, it has been defined that for a legal dispute to arise three elements must be present- a legal right exists, the right was violated/invaded and lastly, there must be a denial on the part of the offender or the accused. In the case at bar, the absence of the third element must be noted. If in case, Mr. Banag would file for a complaint against Mr. Sison, with Mr. Sison accepting and owning to the responsibility for the incident, there would cease to be a legal dispute and the same may proceed without the arbitration of the court but only between the parties involved.