Legal Research - Peter Banag Case

NAME: JOHN MICHAEL E. VILLEGAS DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2015 SUBJECT: LEGAL RESEARCH Defending the Plaintif a. Identify the Issue(s); I.

Whether or not Arthur Sison exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe for its customers.

II.

Whether or not Mary’s accident was through her own contributory negligence.

III.

Whether or not the Arthur Sison is liable for damages.

b. Research the statutory law applicable, if any; 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. CIVIL CODE, Art. 2183. Art. 2179. 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. CIVIL CODE, Art. 2179. Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following analogous cases: (1) A Criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; CIVIL CODE, Art. 2219.

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. CIVIL CODE, Art. 2176.

c. Research the case law/court ruling applicable, if any;

Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals “Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The elements of simple negligence: are (1) that there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender; … The standard test in determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence…” Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569. Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appelas “ a child under nine years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.” Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appelas, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 375. Umali v. Bacani

“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.” Umali v. Bacani, G.R. No. L-40570, January 30,1976, 69 SCRA 263.

I. Whether or not Arthur Sison exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe for its customers. In Arthur Sison’s letter addressed to Peter Banag in response to the latter’s request for payment in the amount of P 20,000.00 for the injuries that his daughter suffered, “I always sold my ice-candies at the gate when people came to buy. The gate had automatic close. But at times, I left it unlocked from the inside because my children often went in and out.” In the case of Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals “Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The elements of simple negligence: are (1) that there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender; … The standard test in determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to

refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence… Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569. The precautionary measure mentioned above was not done by Arthur Sison. He left the gate opened for the purpose of not being interrupted during his nap. If he was cautious enough, he would have thought of closing his store for a while or at least put a leash on the dog before he took a nap. Also, being in the business of selling ice-candies, it is safe to say that most of his customers are children, even with the written warning on the gate about the presence of a dog, customers especially the very young ones may not yet have the ability to read rendering the written warning useless. Therefore, Arthur was negligent in the lack of precaution to maintain his premises safe for his customers.

II. Whether or not Mary’s accident was through her own contributory negligence. 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. CIVIL CODE, Art. 2183. This article clearly states that the possessor of the dog, Mr. Sison is responsible for the damage the animal has caused. Arthur may claim that what happened was brought about by contributory negligence on Mary’s part as the former implied in his letter, or he may claim that letting Mary roam the vicinity unaccompanied is negligence on your part and constitutes the proximate cause of her injuries, notwithstanding his own

negligence in leaving the gate unlocked before napping. Both scenarios are governed by Article 2179 of the Civil Code that provides: Art. 2179. 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. CIVIL CODE, Art. 2179. In the first scenario, in 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.” Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appelas, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 375. It is clearly stated that Mary the 6 year old child is incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. And as for the second scenario, in Umali v. 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.” Umali v. Bacani, G.R. No. L-40570, January 30,1976, 69 SCRA 263.

The only reprieve due him would be a mitigation of his liability under Art.2179. III. Wheter or not the Arthur Sison is liable for damages.

If Arthur didn’t leave the gate unlocked or at least put the dog on a leash before taking a nap – an act showing a lack of due care – there would have been no way the dog could have attacked Mary. Of course, he may say that paying Mary’s medical bill should be enough, but that does not cover the moral damages that Mary is entitled to under Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following analogous cases: (1) A Criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; CIVIL CODE, Art. 2219.

Quasi-delict defined in the Civil Code is: 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. CIVIL CODE, Art. 2176. Therefore Arthur, being the owner of the dog that attacked Mary, is liable for ACTUAL and MORAL DAMAGES.