Liability of possessor of animal on injury caused by it

Dear PAO,

My son was bitten by the dog of my neighbor Danny. He refused to pay the hospital expenses of my son, claiming that he is not the owner of the dog. Danny also maintained he is not liable for the injuries of my son because he is not negligent under the circumstances, as the dog was tied to the gate of his house when the incident occurred. Is it true that Danny has no liability for my son’s injury?

Tundra

Dear Tundra,

Danny is liable for the injury sustained by your son. In fact, his liability is based on the provision of Article 2183 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which reads as follows:

“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 damages should come from force majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.”

It is clear from the above-cited provision of law that the possessor of the animal or whoever makes use of the same, and not the owner of the same, shall be responsible for the damage caused by it. Thus, Danny cannot escape liability by claiming that he is not the owner of the dog as long as it can be proven that he is the possessor or the one using the same. This finds support in the decision of the court entitled Afialda vs Hisole and Hisole (GR L-2075, Nov. 29, 1949):

“For the statute names the possessor or user of the animal as the person liable for “any damages it may cause,” and this for the obvious reason that the possessor or user has the custody and control of the animal and is therefore the one in a position to prevent it from causing damage.”

The issue of the presence of negligence is also immaterial in this instant case. This is in consonance with the decision of the court in the case of Vestil and Vestil vs Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (GR 74431, Nov. 6, 1989), where the Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Isagani Cruz stated that:

“According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on 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.”

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, the lack of negligence on the part of the possessor of the dog like Danny is not a defense in the determination of his liability. The latter’s obligation is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses the dog either for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage caused by the animal.

Moreover, under Republic Act 9482, otherwise known as the “AntiRabies Act of 2007”, Danny may be considered as a pet owner, thus: “Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. xxx “(g) Owner refers to any person keeping, harboring or having charge, care or control of a Dog including his/her representative.”

Being a pet owner under the law, Danny has the obligation to assist the dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s injuries (Sec.5, RA No. 9482).

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.