Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
LEGAL WRITING
2018-0513
Interview with Mr. Fred Puzon, accompanied by client, Mr. Peter Banag. Sept. 21
OUTLINE OF FACTS
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.
10.(19) Q. What did you see Mary doing from where you stood?
A. I saw Mary approach Arthur’s gate and knock on it. But no one
answered.
Page 1 of 4
11.(14) Q. Do you know why Mary was near Arthur’s house?
A. She went there to buy ice candies. Arthur had been selling ice candies at
his house for some time.
15.(12) Q. Did you know how old Mary was at that time?
A. I found out that she was about six years old.
Fred Puzon, twenty-one, and a resident of 24 Annapolis St., Cubao, Quezon City, is a
neighbor of Arthur Sison, resident of 12 Annapolis St., Cubao
Page 2 of 4
On September 12, Saturday, at around 3 p.m., Fred, while waiting on Annapolis St. for his
friend, saw Mary Banag, six-year-old daughter of Peter Banag, approach Arthur’s gate and
knock on it.
Mary went there to buy ice candies. She kept knocking softly at the gate, and tested the
gate by pushing it. Then the gate yielded and the dog of Arthur jumped out.
Mary held the gate open and called in saying that she wanted to buy ice candy.
The dog then went after her, and attacked her from behind as she turned and ran to leave.
Fred, after recovering from shock, immediately ran to help Mary, and kicked the dog
away. He then stood by to protect Mary from further attacks.
The dog kept on barking, then Arthur came out of his house and sent his dog into the
yard.
Arthur picked Mary up and called a tricycle, and brought her to a nearby clinic for
treatment.
SUMMARY
Fred Puzon, twenty-one years old, and a resident of 24 Annapolis St., Cubao, Quezon City, is
a neighbor of Arthur Sison, resident of 12 Annapolis St., Cubao. On September 12, Saturday, at
around 3 p.m., Fred saw Mary Banag, six-year-old daughter of Peter Banag, approach Arthur’s
gate and knock on it. He knew that Mary went there to buy ice candies. She kept knocking softly
at the gate, and tested the gate by pushing it. Then the gate yielded and the dog of Arthur jumped
out. Mary held the gate open and called in saying that she wanted to buy ice candy. The dog then
went after her, and attacked her from behind as she turned and ran to leave. Fred, after
recovering from shock, immediately ran to help Mary, and kicked the dog away. He then stood
by to protect Mary from further attacks. The dog kept on barking, then Arthur came out of his
house and sent his dog into the yard. Arthur picked Mary up and called a tricycle, and brought
her to a nearby clinic for treatment.
Peter asked Fred to pay Mary P20,000.00 in damages for what she suffered, but Arthur
refused, as he does not believe that he should be liable for damages to Mary, in addition to the
medical bills that he shouldered.
LEGAL DISPUTE
APPLICABLE LAWS/RULES
Sec. 5. Responsibilities of Pet Owner. - All Pet Owners shall be required to:
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) Maintain control over their Dog and not allow it to roam the streets or
any Public Place without a leash.
(d) xxx
(e) Within twenty-four (24) hours, report immediately any Dog biting
incident to the Concerned Officials for investigation or for any
appropriate action and place such Dog under observation by a
government or private veterinarian.
(f) Assist the Dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical
expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s
injuries.
Page 3 of 4
Article 2183 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
“Art. 2183. 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 damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.”
“Art. 2176. 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.”
Vestil et. al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989)
“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.”
ISSUES
Page 4 of 4