Legal Dispute:

1. Peter Banag asking Aruthur Sison for the payment of damages caused by his dog to Mar Bunag
2. Arthur Sison's refusal to pay for the damage

Facts:
On September 12 at about 3 pm, Mary Banag, six years old, living in 16 Annapolis St., Cubao, Quezon City
went to the house of Arthur Sison, the same street where she lives, to buy ice-candies.

Mary approached Arthur's gate and knocked on it but no on answered so still she kept on
knocking softly at the gate. She then held the gate open and called in saying she wanted to buy ice-candy.

As she turned and ran to leave the dog come out of the yard and attacked her.
She fell to the ground and the dog bit her leg and even her arms. This incident was seen by
Fred Puzon who is their neighbor.

When Fred saw the dog attacked Mary he immediately run to help her and kicked the dog away.
He stood by to protect Mary from further attacks while the dog kept barking and looked as if it would attack again.
But the dog did not do further attack because Arthur came out of his house and sent his dog into his yard.

Arthur Sison, who is the owner of the dog, picked Mary up, called a tricycle and brought her to a nearby clinic
for treatment of her wounds and for an injection. Arthur paid for the medical bills.

Peter asked Arthur to pay her daughter Php 20, 000 in damages she suffered. However, Peter received
only a letter from Arthur saying that his gate carried a written warning about the presence of the dog
and that it has an automatic gate closer though at time he leaves it unlocked because his kids went
in and out. He also said that a child should not leave the house without escort. He claimed that he
immediately brought Mary to a medical clinic nearby for the treatment of her wonds and for an
injection. As well as he paid for the medical bill. Thus, he should not be liable for damges.

Laws & Rules:

1. Laws or the rules that should properly govern them:
Article 2176 of the Civil Code
Whoever by act or ommission caused 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.

Article 2179 of the 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 defedant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate damages to be awarded.

Article 2183 of the Civil Code

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.
 2. Parallel Cases that the Supreme Court has previously decided and see of the rulings and doctrines
established in these cases could be cited against you or to your advantage.

To your advantage
Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, saying that: 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.

Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, that a "child under nine years of age must be
conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law."

Umali vs. Bacani provides that parental negligence in allowing a young child to go out of the house
alone may at most qualify as contributory negligence and as such would be covered by the second
sentence of Article 2179.

Principal Issue:
1. Whether or not Arthur Sison is liable for damages.

Subordinate Issues:
1. Whether or not Arthur Sison exercised proper diligence in making its premise safe for its customers.
2. Whether or not Mary's accident was through her own contributory negligence.

Controlling Issue:
1. Whether or not Arthur Sison is liable for damages.
 Mar Bunag

Cubao, Quezon City

ed to buy ice-candy.

ed as if it would attack again.

his dog into his yard.

ght her to a nearby clinic

er, Peter received

ence of the dog
his kids went
imed that he

t or negligence,
no pre-existing
erned by the

use of his injury,

e immediate
e plaintiff may

nsible for the damage

gs and doctrines

a, the obligation imposed

resumed lack of vigilance
atural equity and on the
asure or service must

e years of age must be

d to go out of the house

e covered by the second

for its customers.

 Where you Stand on the Issue
Arthur Sison is liable for damages.
(Arguments Against You) (Arguments in Your Favor)

Mr. Sison was negligent

when he took a nap and
left his gate unlocked,
knowing fully well that
Mr. Sison argued that he
exercised due diligence by there was a dog in his
premises and despite the
the fact that there was a
sign on the gate, it may not 1
sign on the gate as a
deter his customers from
caution of the presence of
coming in and buying ice
the dog.
candies. Had he locked the
gate, the dog would not
have been able to jump out
and attacked Mary.

1
 Where you Stand on the Issue
Arthur Sison is liable for damages.
(Arguments Against You) (Arguments in Your Favor)

Mr. Sison alleged that

since Mary was the one
who came to his house, A child under nine (9) years
of age must be conclusively
unaccompanied by any
presumed and incapable of
adult, there was
contributory negligence as
negligence on their part
a matter of law.
which was the proximate
cause of Mary's injuries.