WHETHER OR NOT ARTHUR IS LIABLE.

i am 21
i work with the government
i live in 24 annapolis st. cubao, quezon city
yes, sir. i saw it bite marrys leg and even her arms as she fell to the ground
yes, sir, the dog belonged to Arthur sison.
I immediately ran to help her but, unfortunately, I tripped on the gutter and fell on my hands and knees.
I recovered quickly, moved on, and kicked the dog away. I then stood by to protect marry from further attacks.
The dog kept on barking and looked as if it would attack us.
No because Arthur came out of his house and send his dog into his yard.
Arthur picked her up, called a trycicle and brought her to a nearby clinic for treatment.
my friend then arrived and then we left for mall.
i found out that he was about six years old.
we are neighbours, He lives at 12 Annapolis St. the same street where i lived.
she went there to buy ice candies. Arthur had been selling ice candies at his house for sometime.
I myself used to buy ice candies from him especially during summer.
It happened on September 12 at about 3 pm.
I was waiting on Annapolis st. for my fried henry uy to come and pick me up so we could go to the mall.
it was a Saturday afternoon.
I saw marry approach Arthurs gate and knock on it. but no one answered.
still she kept on knocking softly on the gate.
a young girl of her age passed by and waived at her.
Arthurs dog came out of the yard. as marry tested the gate by pushing it, the gate yielded and the dog
jumped out.
she held the gate and open and called in saying the she wanted to but ice candy. Pagbilan nga po ng Ice
candy she said.
That was the time I saw the dog go after her. It attacked her from behind as she turned and ran to leave.

WHETHER OR NOT ARTHUR IS LIABLE

Fred Puzon, 21 years old, lives in 24 Annapolis St. Cubao, Quezon City. It was a Saturday afternoon at about 3 pm on September 12. I was waiting
on Annapolis St. for my friend Henry Uy to come and pick me up so we could go to the mall. I saw marry approach Arthurs gate and knock on it but
no one answered. As marry tested the gate by pushing it, the gate yielded and Arthurs dog came out of the yard then dog jumped out.

That was the time I saw the dog go after her. It attacked her from behind as she turned and ran to leave. I saw it bite Marrys leg and even her arms
as she fell to the ground. Arthur came out of his house and sends his dog into his yard. Arthur picked her up and called a tricycle and brought her to
a nearby clinic for treatment.

Article 2183 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.
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.

Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under article 1905 of the Civil Code, which reads:

The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if
such animal should escape from him or stray away.

This liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who may have suffered it.

In a decision of the Spanish Supreme Court, cited by Manresa in his Commentaries (Vol. 12, p. 578), the death of
an employee who was bitten by a feline which his master had asked him to take to his establishment was by said
tribunal declared to be "a veritable accident of labor" which should come under the labor laws rather than under
article 1905 of the Civil Code. The present action, however, is not brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act,
there being no allegation that, among other things, defendant's business, whatever that might be, had a gross
income of P20,000. As already stated, defendant's liability is made to rest on article 1905 of the Civil Code. but
action under that article is not tenable for the reasons already stated. On the other hand, if action is to be based on
article 1902 of the Civil Code, it is essential that there be fault or negligence on the part of the defendants as owners
of the animal that caused the damage. But the complaint contains no allegation on those points.