Scribd
Upload
109 views1 page

Legal Opinion Writing Excercise 6

This letter provides legal advice to Mr. Peter Banag regarding pursuing a civil action for damages against Arthur Sison, whose dog attacked Mr. Banag's daughter Mary. It summarizes the key facts of the incident where Mary was bitten by Arthur's dog while attempting to buy ice candy at his house. The letter analyzes Philippine law regarding owner responsibility for damage caused by animals, and concludes that Mr. Sison could be liable for medical expenses if it can be proven Mary did not provoke the dog and the dog was not properly secured, given it was known to be dangerous.

Uploaded by

Alpheus Shem ROJAS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
109 views1 page

Legal Opinion Writing Excercise 6

This letter provides legal advice to Mr. Peter Banag regarding pursuing a civil action for damages against Arthur Sison, whose dog attacked Mr. Banag's daughter Mary. It summarizes the key facts of the incident where Mary was bitten by Arthur's dog while attempting to buy ice candy at his house. The letter analyzes Philippine law regarding owner responsibility for damage caused by animals, and concludes that Mr. Sison could be liable for medical expenses if it can be proven Mary did not provoke the dog and the dog was not properly secured, given it was known to be dangerous.

Uploaded by

Alpheus Shem ROJAS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Mr.

Peter Banag
16 Annapolis St.
Cubao, Quezon City
Philippines

Re: Possible civil action for damages against Arthur Sison as owner of the dog that
attacked Mary Banag.

Dear Mr. Banag,

This letter contains my legal advice on implication of Mr. Arthur Sison as the
owner of the dog who attacked your daughter and the merits of your demand for
damages against Mr. Sison.

First, we start on the corroborated facts presented by witness Mr. Puzan and the
facts presented from Mr. Sison’s letter. Mary went to Arthur’s house to buy ice-candy
on September 12, 3 p.m., Saturday. Nobody answered so Mary tested to open the gate
of Arthur and it did in hopes of being heard and answered. But instead of being heard
the dog went out of the yard and went on attacking Mary until Fred Puzan ran to
rescue her from the dog. Arthur was awakened from his afternoon nap on September
12. After hearing that his dog attacked a child, he immediately got out of his house
and as he did, he saw neighbor Mr. Puzan defending the child Mary who was on the
ground, he then let his dog inside the yard. He took the wounded child to the nearest
clinic to be treated of her wounds and injected, after a while the child’s mother arrived
and comforted her, he then paid for the medical bill of the child. After the said
incident you sent a demand letter for payment of damages to Mr. Sison which he
refuse to acquiesce.

Moving on, based on the statement of facts there is factual dispute between you
and Mr. Sison. The only issue is whether or not Mr. Sison is liable to pay damages to
your daughter for what his dog did to her.

As far as Philippine law is concerned, as a general rule, “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” under Article 2183 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Furthermore, RA9482 THE ANTI RABIES ACT and Responsibilities of a Pet Owner
a special law of the Philippines, requires pet owners to:

“Assist the Dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical expenses incurred
and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s injuries.”

However, for the foregoing rule and special law to apply, it is important to prove
that your daughter Mary Banag did not unnecessarily or without cause placed herself
within the reach of the dog of Mr. Sison and that Mr. Sison’s dog was not securely
fastened which he knows to be dangerous.

You might also like